Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


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

EFF Reviews 5 Years Under The DMCA 241

Posted by timothy from the an-icy-wind dept.
briaydemir writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has a new report, Unintended Consequences: Five Years under the DMCA, detailing how the DMCA has stiffled competition, innovation, scientific research, and fair use. The original news release is here, and the report is also available as a PDF. Check it out if you want a good summary of all the DMCA cases over the past five years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF Reviews 5 Years Under The DMCA More

EFF Reviews 5 Years Under The DMCA

Comments Filter:

  • Time to go. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by typobox43 ( 677545 ) <typobox43@gmail.com> on Saturday October 04, 2003 @06:47PM (#7134806) Homepage
    This article really shows why it is time for the DMCA to go. Anyone who happens to create any sort of device that someone figures out a way to use it to circumvent anything can be sued under the DMCA. (See also the Sklyarov incident.) Remember when someone discovered that you could use a Sharpie to circumvent the copy protection on a CD? Manufacturers/programmers/whatever should never be responsible for what anyone does outside the intended uses.

    • Re:Time to go. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Omega037 ( 712939 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @06:58PM (#7134855)
      **Manufacturers/programmers/whatever should never be responsible for what anyone does outside the intended uses.**

      This is also the reason that gun manufacturers can't be held responsible for crimes commited with guns. If the intended use is hunting or self protection, then they cannot be held responsible for any other use. However, if there is reasonable evidence to suggest that the guns have a forseealbe intended use to commit crimes, the manufacturer can be held responsible. This is why the more powerful assault rifles and machine guns are illegal to be sold to civilians.

      The same law should apply to digital technology. A hacking tool like a port scanner should be legal as it can have an intended use to check your own network for security holes. However, a trojan horse program is obviously intended for illegal remote access to a computer, and should be illegal.

      • Re:Time to go. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @07:17PM (#7134940)

        This is why the more powerful assault rifles and machine guns are illegal to be sold to civilians.

        Untrue on its face.

        • Machine guns are legal to own, just expensive to license.
        • All rifles are assault rifles. Only a few specific rifles were banned.
        • You can buy a .50BMG rifle if you want to.
        Traditionally, a device is legal if there are significant legal uses.

        • Re:Time to go. (Score:3, Informative)

          by rjh ( 40933 )
          All rifles are assault rifles.

          In military formalisms, a rifle is an assault rifle if and only if it (a) is a rifle which (b) fires an intermediate-power cartridge (c) selectively (d) from a magazine.

          Rifles which fire full-power cartridges, like the M-14 and G3, are correctly termed "battle rifles", as are intermediate-caliber weapons which only fire semiautomatically.

      • Re:Time to go. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by pslam ( 97660 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @07:19PM (#7134946) Homepage Journal
        This is also the reason that gun manufacturers can't be held responsible for crimes commited with guns. If the intended use is hunting or self protection, then they cannot be held responsible for any other use. However, if there is reasonable evidence to suggest that the guns have a forseealbe intended use to commit crimes, the manufacturer can be held responsible.

        I can foresee killing somebody by cramming 20 twinkies down their throat. Should we hold the manufacturer reponsible?

        Really, I was almost tempted to not bother sending this because it's so obvious. Quite frankly there are too many people using that weak argument to make lots of money out of frivolous lawsuits. That's basically the reasoning being used to sue games developers, i.e GTA3.

        • Dude, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to sue you. For emotional damages no less. Why didn't you foresee all the stress and emotional pain that your comment could put a person through! Oh the agony! You should have though about every possible effect you comment could ever had!

          Yeah. Right. Meanwhile, back in the real world...

      • Re:Time to go. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @07:25PM (#7134965) Homepage Journal
        This is why the more powerful assault rifles and machine guns are illegal to be sold to civilians.

        A civillian can purchase a fully automatic firearm provided he undergoes an FBI background check, gets fingerprinted, and pays the $250 per year license fee. It is perfectly legal (in the US) for any law abiding civillian to own a machine gun. It's been this way since 1934.

        Even more to the point, the VAST majority of the firearms used to commit crimes are 6 shot revolvers. They were churned out like hoola hoops for about 60 years and are still plentiful and cheap on the black market. Banning firearms is no more about controlling crime than the DMCA is about stopping malicious copyright infringement.

        A hacking tool like a port scanner should be legal as it can have an intended use to check your own network for security holes. However, a trojan horse program is obviously intended for illegal remote access to a computer, and should be illegal.

        No program in and of itself should be illegal. It shuold only be illegal if one uses them in a manner that is, well illegal. You should be able to create any virus, trojan or system hijacker you wish, as soon as you use them on someone else's system is when you cross the line.

        LK

      • Re:Time to go. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by djcapelis ( 587616 )
        What's the difference between BO2k and winVNC, both control your computer, winVNC provides you _FULL_ access to the desktop! Oh My! BO2K is in a way much more limited! Yet, if you were deciding which ones to toss out, even though both of them are billed as remote administration tools, you'd toss out BO2K and keep winVNC without a second thought most likely.

        Or you'd toss out winVNC with it... and consequently put a halt to any kind of decent remote administration of windows, non-M$. Unless you tossed th
        • Actually, I'd probably keep BO2K... WinVNC doesn't have that really useful "Open CD Tray" button!</sarcasm>

          Seriously, BO2K isn't a 'remote administration tool', since it lacks any kind if real usefullnes to actually administrate the remote PC.

          You can run/close programs, upload/download files, echo keystrokes (but you can't see what you're doing unless you type one key then take another snapshot), move the mouse but not click (see echo keystrkes), display dialog boxes, and reboot. None of that is par
          • fine then, but how would you encode that
            difference in the general case, in abstract,
            and know that you'd gotten it right for all
            concrete cases? a person could go on a case
            by case basis for what they consider valid
            or not, and even if everyone else in the
            world agreed with them, it would make no
            difference...

            you still couldn't codify
            the difference as law, without explicitly
            stating what precise differences make
            BO2k invalid... and even once that was done,
            what if BO2k added just those features,
            and no more? is it n
      • Define trojan. Write a law on this and I'll show you how it can be interpreted for use as a tool to supress free speech. There is a thin line between legitimate tools and ilegitimate ones. You can not convince me that laws against "trojans" should be created. Laws against criminal acts, now that is another story.

        "However, a trojan horse program is obviously intended for illegal remote access to a computer, and should be illegal."

        Is it that obvious? Let me give you an easy hypothetical. I install a t
      • a trojan horse program can be used as a network administration tool, no?
      • By your reasoning, "guns have a forseealbe intended use to commit crimes" then it is HANDGUNS that should be banned. Handgubs are easily concealed which makes them perfect for commiting crimes. Any weapon with a large magazine should be banned, as they allow large scale killing. I know that guns do have constructive purposes (hunting, target shooting), but their main reason to exist is to kill people.

        I think it is ludicrous that the penalties for "computer hacking" now appear to be as stiff as thiose for v

      • Hate to burst your bubble on the fine line between a device "obviously intended for illegal remote access to a computer" and the rest, but you just aren't being imaginative.

        Ever heard of using modified Trojans as remote management tools? Hell, the difference between BO/Netbus and Remote Desktop/VNC/SSH is pretty slim. Sometimes, in a pinch, a trojan is actually a helpful, useful tool.

        And you forget that there are TONS of situations where spying on/remotely accessing another person's machine without perm

    • Time to revise the DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dukeofshadows ( 607689 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @07:27PM (#7134974) Journal
      The DMCA was created in the spirit that new forms of electronic media were not safe from potential copyright violations, and the act did what it set out to do. Yet it also did a great deal more as special interests and corporate schmoozers managed to get their paws on the bill and turn it into more of a "dominant market player protection act" than anything else. We all agree that the amount of innovation stifled using the DMCA as justification is staggering. Yet electronic media should also be protected from the loopholes the bill originally solved. Here are a few potential solutions:

      1) Remove the current DMCA and amend it such that only specific uses of media are prohibited. Allow for the use of back-engineering tools with HARSH punishments for people who knowingly use them to break copyrighted material with intent to distribute. This leaves the burden of proof with a prosecutors instead of the "guilty-til-proven- innocent" tactics of the RIAA et. al.

      2) Make a specific statement for "loser pays": anyone suing under using this legislation who loses the case pays for the legal costs of both parties. Settlements don't count, and this will outright favor the bigger players, but in the American climate of "legal attrition" as a business strategy I see no other effective means of trying to relieve this aspect of the DMCA problem.

      3) Allow publications on computer security to be done freely and thoroughly if tied to legitimate academic or corporate entities. Hold computer manufacturers liable if one of their components has a security flaw that causes eggregious commercial/monetary damage but which could have been fixed by repair of one of these published flaws.

      4) Ensure that American laws apply only to American citizens with the express wording that products purchased in other parts of the world which belong to the consumer are theirs to do with as they please. A clause allowing rightful action to take whatever steps necessary to use that product would be nice (mod chips et. al)

      Pointing fingers makes us feel good, but unless we propose alternatives and compromises, are we really doing anything but venting? Does anyone else have potential solutions/thoughts on how to resolve this issue?
      • The DMCA was created in the spirit that new forms of electronic media were not safe from potential copyright violations, and the act did what it set out to do. Yet it also did a great deal more as special interests and corporate schmoozers managed to get their paws on the bill and turn it into more of a "dominant market player protection act" than anything else. We all agree that the amount of innovation stifled using the DMCA as justification is staggering. Yet electronic media should also be protected fr
      • Good points on 1 and 2, but in (3) I'd suggest not adding the 'if tied to legitimate academic or corporate entities' - you'd still be limitting free speech in some cases unless everyone is allowed to discuss what they've found wrong with a product.

      • Re:Time to revise the DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ChaosDiscord ( 4913 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @10:01AM (#7136912) Homepage Journal
        Yet electronic media should also be protected from the loopholes the bill originally solved.

        What loopholes?

        It is illegal to distribute copies of works protected by copyright without the copyright holder's permission.

        Nice and simple. It doesn't matter if you're distributing photocopies on the street corner and sharing them over a peer-to-peer client. It's still illegal. No loopholes.

        Allow for the use of back-engineering tools with HARSH punishments for people who knowingly use them to break copyrighted material with intent to distribute.

        But it's already illegal to distribute works protected by copyright. What will adding a another rule do to help? This is just hyper-criminalization, an amazingly bad idea.

        Perhaps we need a law with additional penalties for disabling a home security system. Sure, it's already illegal to break into my home, but I don't feel safe enough. Surely a criminal who has decided to break and enter will be thwarted when he discovers that disabling my alarm system is illegal.

        Allow publications on computer security to be done freely and thoroughly if tied to legitimate academic or corporate entities.

        Lots of important security work is being done by loosely associated individuals. What's magic about working for an academic or corporate entity that makes the research more valid?

        Pointing fingers makes us feel good, but unless we propose alternatives and compromises, are we really doing anything but venting? Does anyone else have potential solutions/thoughts on how to resolve this issue?

        Yes, there are potential solutions. Repeal the law, it does way more harm than good. The benefits are miniscule and unworthy of protection. We already protect the rights of copyright holders.

      • Copyright infringement is already illegal - no "new" laws were required. The DMCA simply created criminial laws were there were once civil laws. The DMCA is a horrible over-extension of copyright law.

        All copyright should be reduced to 20 years.

      • 2) Make a specific statement for "loser pays": anyone suing under using this legislation who loses the case pays for the legal costs of both parties. Settlements don't count, and this will outright favor the bigger players, but in the American climate of "legal attrition" as a business strategy I see no other effective means of trying to relieve this aspect of the DMCA problem.

        How about TORT reform to where anyone that brings a lawsuit without merit has to pay the loser's bills and limits damages. Yeah,

    • Anyone who happens to create any sort of device that someone figures out a way to use it to circumvent anything can be sued under the DMCA.

      Maybe they should pass a law that "anyone who happens to create any sort of law that someone figures out a way to use it to stifle innovation or restrict freedom of expression can be sued for damages."

      Thank you, I definitely will keep dreaming.

  • Laws not thought out... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MisanthropicProggram ( 597526 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @06:54PM (#7134839)
    As was explained to me by a Lawyer who worked for Congress at one time, most laws are the result of knee-jerk reactions to public/corporate demand. Unfortunately, not much thought goes into the consequences of these laws. They just want to keep their jobs.

    Another problem is that Congress makes some of these laws so vague as to leave too much interpretation up to the judges who try cases under these laws. Unfortunately, organizations such as the EFF don't have the clout or the resources that the corps do.

    I have to stop now before I go on a rant ;-)

    • Re:Laws not thought out... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Meden Agan ( 712743 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @07:08PM (#7134905)
      Unfortunately, organizations such as the EFF don't have the clout or the resources that the corps do.
      And that's why they need all the support they can get! If you have any interest in this issue, please seriously consider donating to the EFF [eff.org]. Just think how much it would help if a fraction of slashdot readers donated $10 or $20. Of course when I donate to organizations like this I often wonder if the money gets squandered, but what's $10 in the grand scheme of things?
      • ..."to organizations like this I often wonder" if the supporters' names go into FBI files and are targets for CAPPS II etc. That chills me more than parting with the money.
        • Jesus H tap-dancing Christ. Please tell me you were trying to earn a (Score: 5, Funny).

          Are you not aware of what a self-fulfilling prophecy that is? You won't donate to an organization that explicitly fights to protect your privacy, because you're afraid that they won't protect your privacy?

          Are you also afraid to vote for anybody other than Bush because Ashcroft might find out and come gitcha?

          You might as well be afraid to go to a restaurant during your lunch hour because you might not have enough time l
      • [C]onsider donating to the EFF. Just think how much it would help if a fraction of slashdot readers donated $10 or $20....what's $10 in the grand scheme of things?

        You know, I would donate that $10, but I just spent my last $16.99 on "InSync With Britny's Backstreet, Boy".

        It's got a great track of fiddle music to play while the Bill of Rights, and Rome, burns.

        It's all about your priorities, I guess.

    • WTF?! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by CausticWindow ( 632215 )

      Are you suggesting that the American congress might have done something rash? Something wrong?

      Do you understand the implications of that allegation? Have you any idea how many lives are ended or ruined every year, due to decisions made in the US congress?

      Please moderate yourself. If the US congress were prone to "error", thousands, or hundred of thousands of people have died in wain.

    • As was explained to me by a Lawyer who worked for Congress at one time, most laws are the result of knee-jerk reactions to public/corporate demand. Unfortunately, not much thought goes into the consequences of these laws. They just want to keep their jobs.

      I think that the Patriot Act is a great example of why knee-jerk reactions are bad. When the law was being pushed through congress in the aftermath of 9/11, people who were conerned, even bothered, by many of the provisions in the law were afraid to sp

  • What I'd like to know... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bad_fx ( 493443 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @06:55PM (#7134845) Journal
    What I'd really like to know is just how "unintended" some of these consequences were... *shrug*

  • Excessive punishments (Score:5, Insightful)

    by damacer ( 713360 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @06:55PM (#7134846)
    One of the things that bothers me most about laws like the DMCA and the NET (no electronic theft) act is the excessive punishments they put in place for various violations.

    For example, the DMCA makes it a felony to circumvent a copy protection device. And, similarly, the NET act makes it a felony to share copyrighted materials via a service like Kazaa with a possible 5 year prison term.

    Regardless of whether the things out lawed by legislation like this really should be out lawed or not, the punishments really need to be adjusted to fit the crime. Neither getting your dvd player to play dvd's from europe, nor sharing the latest Eminem song should even carry the possiblity of landing you several months little less several years in the slammer. Okay, the Eminem case is iffy, but otherwise...
    • For example, the DMCA makes it a felony to circumvent a copy protection device. And, similarly, the NET act makes it a felony to share copyrighted materials via a service like Kazaa with a possible 5 year prison term.
      Great... now our prisons will be filled with people who commited no "crime" other than smoking marijuana or sharing some copyrighted file. Nice use of tax dollars.

      What are you in for?

  • Deja Vu Anyone? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jstockdale ( 258118 ) * on Saturday October 04, 2003 @06:56PM (#7134850) Homepage Journal
    For those of you who seem to recall a very similar story but can't quite pin it down: your not crazy. The EFF revises their opinion on the DMCA every year, under the title "Unintended Consequences: X Years under the DMCA." I traced it back at least to 2 years ago, and there may have been articles previous.

    They do make several good points, and I would go into more specifics but I really don't have time to read the new version (I read the older editions a year ago when I was investigating impacts of the DMCA for a research paper). An actual evaluation of the entire DMCA document is difficult especially due to the nature of Copyright law, Fair Use, et al, but the EFF does a good job, albeit a mildly biased one.

    On a related note for those of you that have 30 seconds: support the EFF's newest petition -> "Take a Stand Against the Madness; Stop the RIAA!" [eff.org] Its a useful free alternative to being even more useful and donating to the cause [eff.org].

  • Steinway left Germany and came to America (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kfg ( 145172 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @07:05PM (#7134892)
    . . . because they were in a dispute with the painter's guild. Steinway painted their pianos. The painter's guild claimed this as a violation of their guild rights.

    Steinway said, "Fuck this shit" (Well, the German equivilent actually), and came to America. In the process making America the center of a cultural technology that had previously been a European monopoly.

    America is making such inovative freedom illegal. It will reap the consecquences, just as did Europe.

    The DMCA was written entirely to protect existing vested interests. When you do so you automatically restrict (even if that wasn't your intent) development of other interests that spur economic growth.

    The end result is stagnation with all power and wealth gradually making its way into a few hands.

    Welcome to the economic algae pond, Brother.

    KFG

  • You'd think better of the EFF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Saturday October 04, 2003 @07:08PM (#7134908) Homepage Journal
    What's with the use of the word "pirate" all throughout this document?

    Congress meant to stop copyright pirates from defeating anti-piracy protections added to copyrighted works

    Rather than focusing on pirates, many copyright owners have wielded the DMCA to hinder their legitimate competitors.

    This document collects a number of reported cases where the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA have been invoked not against pirates, but against consumers, scientists, and legitimate comp-etitors.

    The details of section 1201, then, were a response not just to U.S. treaty obligations, but also to the concerns of copyright owners that their works would be widely pirated in the networked digital world.

    According to Blizzard, the bnetd software has been used by some to permit networked play of pirated Blizzard games.


    The DMCA has nothing to do with maritime law. It was not enacted to protect cargo ships or the spanish armarda. "Pirate" is a propaganda term used by copyright owners to imply that unauthorized copying is the equivilent of murder and theft on the high seas. The message is clear: only a vicious enemy of the people would do unauthorized copying. To a lesser degree the term "protection" is also a propaganda term to describe what copyright owners do in restricting our freedom. These terms are an important weapon of people who support the DMCA and other stifling laws as they encourage informers to rat people out to the non-official police forces the copyright owners fund.

    All in all, you'd think the EFF would be too smart to play their game.

    • I think the use of those words is quite appropriate. They list a series of cases involving PhD students, security researchers, and startups. By applying the DMCA to stifle such people, the plaintiffs are equating the defendants with pirates. As you implied in your post, that is completely absurd.

      Using the industrys' own terms they show that the laws are being exploited to prosecute people who clearly are not "pirates". They're using DMCA supporters' own propaganda against them to demonstrate how ludicr
    • "The DMCA has nothing to do with maritime law."

      Language changes, and the definitions of words change as well. The report was written well, and was geared towards anyone reading it, so that they would understand it. 99% of the people will understand what the word pirate means in this document.

      Really, it's people just like you that made the DMCA possible in the first place.
      • In addition, this isn't even an example of (recent) language change! Piracy has been used in the sense of for example "book piracy" for over 300 years.
      • The current use of the word "pirate" didn't just magically appear. It's not like there used to be a word that meant "unauthorized copier" that sounded like the word "pirate" and the changing of vowel sounds or some other linquistic evolution resulted in the general populous dropping the old word and aquiring the new.

        No.. Someone somewhere sat down and designed a campaign of mud slinging and chose the word "pirate" to describe an otherwise socially acceptable act. They then popularised the usage and insti

        • Sorry, but your opinion shows both a lack of information and understanding of the issue.

          First of all, this is not some modern mudslinging campaign as you imply. The usage of piracy to imply theft/reproduction of another's work without permission goes back over three hundred.

          Secondly, as far as can tell (and please, feel free to correct me if you decide to actually read about this stuff on your own) piracy was a term coined by the ones doing the pirating.

          Secondly, reproducing anothrs work and selling it

    • Re:You'd think better of the EFF (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @08:07PM (#7135102) Homepage
      I think that the ship has sailed, as it were, with regards to piracy being used to describe unauthorized copying and distribution.

      The first recorded use of the word 'pirate' in regards to people who made copies of books without permission dates back to 1668. When there were the other kind of pirates as well. And decades before copyright laws came into being. Take a look in your convenient pocket-sized unabridged OED.

      It _is_ a propaganda term -- if someone were trying to achieve the same effect today, they'd call infringers 'terrorists.' But it's such an ancient one that I don't think that there's much point in bitching about it now.
    • You may not fully understand the meaning of the word piracy. Piracy has been used for at least 300 years to describe reproduction of another's work without permission. Since there IS another meaning of the word piracy that you are familiar with, your ignorance is somewhat excusable, but next time before you go spouting off about definitions that you aren't aware of, try using a dictionary.
      • Try to be a bit less insulting when you're talking to people you don't know. Just pretend that you're on the street talking to me. If you'd said what you said above to me I'd knock you on your ass, why should things be any different because you're not available for physical reprisal? Surely we're beyond just the fear of physical harm and can treat each other with respect when that threat isn't around.

        I'm well aware of the definition of the word "piracy" to mean unauthorized reproduction.. in fact, it's

        • Please excuse the anonymous coward that replied, that wasn't me, I may be rude, but not that rude.

          As for my town, I apologize, and you are correct that I wouldn't address someone I just met walking down the street that way. But if I was in some sort of debate--absolutely I would use the facts to my advantage. But, I do take your point, and I apologize again for my overly combative tone.

          My point is simply that you (and many others on slashdot) seem to assume that piracy is some kind of new term--a propag

    • [RANT]

      The press rightly continues to use the word 'piracy' for illicit copying and distribution of original materials. Some think it's a new phenomenon, and hard to square with the traditional image of the Jolly Roger and swashbuckling robbers-at-sea. The use of the word 'piracy' as signifying an unauthorized copy of a manuscript is hundreds of years old, long before modern Copyright doctrine was developed. From http://www.ninch.org/forum/ [ninch.org]

    • There are several posts pointing out that "pirate" and "piracy" has been used to describe copyright infringement for quite a long time.

      That's very nice.

      It's also not relevant.

      Various copyright industries are waging a propoganda war. They're attempting to sway public opinion; not through reasoned argument, but through deception and misdirection. (No matter what you might like to believe, downloading a song off a peer-to-peer network is not identical to shoplifting a CD.)

      These industries really like

  • Alternate interpretations of DMCA (Score:3, Redundant)

    by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation&gmail,com> on Saturday October 04, 2003 @07:17PM (#7134939) Journal
    In an effort to discredit the DMCA, how about looking for ways that it can be misused? Here's a few examples:
    • Crowbars should be declared circumvention devices and be banned, since they can be used to pry open a door which is protecting copyrighted material
    • Airport x-ray devices can be used to see through solid materials and discover copyrighted materials within a briefcase, for example. Thus, x-ray devices circumvent a protection mechanism.
    Any others?
  • I for one am no advocate but here are some options for the creators of the DCMA when it gets pounded eventually, which are positive...

    Create a boy band called DMCA then plit them up giving them all losing solo careers

    Create a rap group RunDMC is taken but JogDMCA is available

    Take the paper it was written on and donate it to public toilets

    Team with R. Kelly and continue going after minors and morons

    Give it to Blair or Cheney (forged of course) so they could start a war with China

    Give it to Bush and tell him it's this year's economic stimulus package (he'll believe it)

    Give it to Ashcroft so he could make a DMCA color coded warning system no one listens to

    See there is more to the DMCA than you thought. And all along everyone was protesting... pffffft

  • The points EFF is trying to make... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Praedon ( 707326 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @07:26PM (#7134966) Journal
    The points they are trying to make are these: 1) DMCA is like Duct Tape... It works on anything, even for things its not intended to. 2) Congress became lazy when they had the DMCA drawn up, and left WAY TOO MANY Loose ends on it. 3) Something has to be done to revise/remove it until a decent Act is actually drawn up...

  • The law written by marketing idiots (Score:5, Interesting)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @07:28PM (#7134977) Journal
    You only have to look at the name to see what a stupid piece of legislation it is:

    Digital - Now whats the point of calling it digital? its just a bandwagon jumping buzzword, well back in the late 90's it was all the rage digital this digital that always with the digital it just means fucking numbers! so by calling it digital they've restricted it to only digital systems. Macrovision on VHS is not digital, therefore it doesn't count, whoops. Now as much as i like that little mistake it doesn't mean its not stupid.

    Millennium - WHY!??!?! WHY!??! WTF! WHY!? it wasn't even the millennium when the law was passed! What does it mean? What possible relevance does the millennium of 2000 have to do with copy-right law and circumnavigation of digital devices? Is it just another bandwagon buzzword?? At least digital was slightly relevant!

    Copy-right Act - This isn't a copy-right act, its an anti-reverse engineering act, its an anti-industrial espionage act, its an anti-freedom-of-speech-if-it-might-hurt-a-company act. A copy-right act would use the phrase "You may not copy copy-righted work that you dont own" the only thing this says your not allowed to copy is circumnavigation software from other people.

    This is the sort of naming i would expect by marketing people. Marketing people have no place in politics and legislation.

  • Remember, this was created by *Clinton*, mmmkay? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Before this discussion turns into the typical "I hate the US" and "I hate Bush" ignorant ranting, let me remind you "free speech as long as it doesn't offend" liberals that it was your boy, Clinton, who had the ultimate push in this.

    • Cinton did sign it, but it was also congress that passed in the middle of the night by a voice vote. Everybody was so busy with the stain on Lewinsky's dress that I think he signed it into law because he didn't want to create a stir. Also, he was ignorant of its true implications.

    • Before this discussion turns into the typical "I hate the US" and "I hate Bush" ignorant ranting, let me remind you "free speech as long as it doesn't offend" liberals that it was your boy, Clinton, who had the ultimate push in this.

      I'm a liberal. I'm even a "free speech as long as it doesn't offend" liberal, if you like. As long as it doesn't offend me. I don't give a damn if it offends you.

      Clinton was never my boy. Clinton was never a liberal. No liberal ever described him as liberal, that was the

  • So how can I use the DMCA? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can I send a note to websites where I have accounts about unauthorized copying of my personal information to third parties?

    Can I use it against adware companies that take data from my computer without my permission?

    Can I use it against Microsoft when their software allows a virus to copy the contents of my address book around the internet?

  • civil disobedience (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @08:10PM (#7135114) Homepage Journal
    Laws really must allow the purchasers of equipment to do with them as they wish. The manufacturer is already protected through limited liability warrantees and traditional copyright laws. If I modify my computer, the manufacturer does not have to honor any applicable warranty. If I make a copy of book or music and sit out on a street corner and sell, or even give away copies, it is likely that traditional copyrights laws will allow for recompense.

    The DCMA, with it's idea that I can purchase a piece of equipment and then not do it as I wish, or that I cannot make copies of books or music for personal use, is just immoral. It is immoral because it allows contracts in which the end user has to agree to terms that are unknown until the end user either cannot return the product of inadvertently breaks the contract. It is immoral because it prevents the necessary innovation that encourages the free market. It is immoral because it circumvents due process.

    And we cannot allow immoral acts to continue. The best defense is peaceful civil disobedience. For instance, don't buy music from RIAA labels. If they have no income, they have no money to fight legal battles. The same goes for the MPAA, game vendors, and anyone else that uses the DMCA. It won't be possible to totally shut them out, but we can at least make an effort.

    I believe a lot of what goes on P2P networks is copyright infringement, but what choice do we have. The music and movies are sold in packages that violates our traditional fair use rights under the law. If i can't make a copy of the CD for my car, and the manufacturer won't give me another CD when the original get stolen or damaged, then why should I buy the CD. The manufacturer obviously has no respect for me as a customer, so I might as well return the disrespect the manufacturer and copy the music off the net.

    The same goes for movies. If movies are increasingly downloaded from the net, it won't be because people don't want to buy movies. It will be because the movies we can buy are illegally packaged to prevent out fair use rights. Why should I buy a movie that is crippled when I can download a copy that honors my fair use rights. The manufacturer may hid behind a license, but it makes no difference. A contract that removes legal rights, especially when the rights are not itemized, should not be honored.

    • I think the fundamental problem here is that when you buy a CD, you think you're buying the right to the music, when, in reality, you're buying the CD. Buying a CD for instance doesn't give you the right to hold a concert where you would play that CD for money. "All rights Reserved" is exactly what complain about in your last paragraph--telling you exactly what rights vis a vis the CREATOR'S copyright you have.
    • It is immoral because it circumvents due process.

      When someone speaks of morals, I take it as an implicit reference to religious doctrine or laws, not laws of the state. Due process is a constitutional guarantee, and circumventing it would be unconstitutional, and very bad, certainly, but not exactly immoral. At least not in the US, where state and church are supposed to be separate.

      Doing 70 in a 65 speed zone is illegal, fucking your neighbor's wife is immoral.

  • Do you really think Congress cares? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Newer Guy ( 520108 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @08:11PM (#7135121)
    Get real. Congress doesn't care about their constituants. All they care about is lining their own pockets! This is proven time after time after time. Congress hasn't cared about the people for decades! Why should we be surprised about the DMCA? Congress and big business saw digital as a way to TAKE BACK right that the people just assumed they were unalienable.
    The irony is that all it would take is a couple of these clowns to be thrown out on their ever-widening asses because they put out a: "for sale" sign and the rest wuld be so scared shit about the gravy train pulling into the station they'd likely capitulate. But we know that just isn't going to happen. People have become so apathetic that they don't even bother to vote. Even Arnold who would be governor of CA doesn't!
    I guess we do get the government we deserve though. Do nothing, and get nothing in return.

  • All the cases? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Misch ( 158807 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @08:24PM (#7135193) Homepage
    Check it out if you want a good summary of all the DMCA cases over the past five years.

    Umm... EFF has skipped over all the $cientology cases, /. cases [slashdot.org], Scientology v. Internet Wayback machine [slashdot.org], Scientology v. Google [slashdot.org], Scientology v. /. [slashdot.org], Scientolog v. Ebay [slashdot.org], and so many more [chillingeffects.org]...
  • The article mentions "how the DMCA has stiffled competition, innovation, scientific research, and fair use". Frankly I doubt the big media conglomerates that lobbied for the DMCA in the first place have the slightest problem with any of those consequences. If they didn't intend them, it was simply lacked the foresight to do so, not because they wouldn't have intended them if it had occurred to them.
    When you're on top of the system, almost any change is seen as dangerous.

    • IIRC, several of the big media companies testified before Congressional committees, under oath, that they would never use the law to do things like stifle competition or scientific research. This seems to be fairly common practice these days; companies take a particular position in their testimony, and do exactly the opposite at the first opportunity. I, for one, would like to see them called back to explain to the committees how they reconcile their words and their actions. And do some jail time for perju

  • Just fix it
    Basicly, the 5 things that will fix the DMCA are:
    1.removal of the "people can get info on who is using ISP accounts without going through the courts by alleging copyright infringment" clause

    2.a change in the anti-circumvention provisions to make it clearer. (so it cant be used for crap, as we have seen in the past, particularly it should better cover things like DeCSS that have substantial non-infringing use and clearly spell out how it should be applied in these cases)

    3.clearer wording of the
  • I don't like the law, but people who support the law will look at EFF's example's and say "Good! This is what we need to stop".

    And so this will amount to nothing. I think the DMCA will hit home if/when people finally get their new HDTV plasma screen, their new HDTV VCR, and they press "RECORD" and it doesn't work.

    Then they'll care.

    But for now, to the public, this is all about "stopping those hackers who started that virus a few months ago"

  • DMCA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Esion Modnar ( 632431 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @08:14AM (#7136515)
    The best legislation money can buy.
  • I've only read parts of the DMCA, so I'm not sure what all the requirements are, but I'm curious if the following scenario is possible.

    Write some sort of copyrighted work on a computer. Since copying files on the computer is easy, use the following method as a copyright protection: make a hardcopy. That is, your copyright protection method is to print out a copy, and even put some copyright notice on the printed copy. Then, sue manufacturers of scanners because they create and distribute "tools" that c

  • Get your music here: http://www.modarchive.com

Slashdot Top Deals

Parts that positively cannot be assembled in improper order will be.

Close