EFF Is Suing the US Government To Invalidate the DMCA's DRM Provisions (boingboing.net) 93
Cory Doctorow, writes for BoingBoing: The Electronic Frontier Foundation has just filed a lawsuit that challenges the Constitutionality of Section 1201 of the DMCA, the "Digital Rights Management" provision of the law, a notoriously overbroad law that bans activities that bypass or weaken copyright access-control systems, including reconfiguring software-enabled devices (making sure your IoT light-socket will accept third-party lightbulbs; tapping into diagnostic info in your car or tractor to allow an independent party to repair it) and reporting security vulnerabilities in these devices. EFF is representing two clients in its lawsuit: Andrew "bunnie" Huang, a legendary hardware hacker whose NeTV product lets users put overlays on DRM-restricted digital video signals; and Matthew Green, a heavyweight security researcher at Johns Hopkins who has an NSF grant to investigate medical record systems and whose research plans encompass the security of industrial firewalls and finance-industry "black boxes" used to manage the cryptographic security of billions of financial transactions every day. Both clients reflect the deep constitutional flaws in the DMCA, and both have standing to sue the US government to challenge DMCA 1201 because of its serious criminal provisions (5 years in prison and a $500K fine for a first offense).Doctorow has explained aspects of this for The Guardian today. You should also check Huang's blog post on this.
Great news (Score:2)
Re:Great news (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Great news (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish them well with this and I'm going to give them money, but money of course is a huge problem now. This is a government and a court that finds things Constitutional or not based on what corporations want, and corporations and law enforcement want broad, hard to interpret laws that can be used to put little people in jail for the 'crime' of bothering the powerful. The DMCA is a terrible law that has been abused more than used, just like how the allegedly anti terrorism Patriot Act is mostly used to prosecute petty drug crimes, quell dissent and anti corporate behavior and other things nobody wants to give up a shred of freedom over.
Re: (Score:2)
a court that finds things Constitutional or not based on what corporations want
tbh I don't think that's true for the supreme court.....or for most lower courts either. It's not like they need to win a re-election.
Re: (Score:2)
You should check out SCOTUSblog, you don't have to just think of the Court as the Ebil Gubermint, you can actually follow along everything the Court does, and read their decisions. They give detailed explanations for most of the things that they do. And there are always "corporations" on both sides of any issue, so no need to worry that that prevents them from deciding things whichever way they want.
Re: (Score:1)
...which means that laws that don't take fair use into account fail to pass constitutional muster."
AMEN!!
Great news everyone! I have a patent on everything (Score:2)
Why would you even need to do that? I don't recall copyright having an amendment. Don't Constitutional rights trump pretty much everything else, period? Remind me when this happened exactly? Copyright/patents are a short term monopoly IN EXCH
Copyright in the Constitution (Score:5, Informative)
I don't recall copyright having an amendment. Don't Constitutional rights trump pretty much everything else, period?
Copyright is one of the enumerated powers of Congress (U.S. Const. I.8): "The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." This power is subject to other rights retained by the people, such as freedom from Congressional interference with freedom of speech (U.S. Const. Amendment I).
The limit to authors is the record human lifespan (Score:2)
It sounds more like an unlimited time to authors
The limit to individual authors is the record human lifespan. "Life" for works of corporate authorship is reckoned at a fixed 25 years after publication or 50 years after creation, whatever comes first.
As for retrospective extensions, so long as the term is finite at any given moment, and so long as nobody manages to prove what the Supreme Court in Eldred called "legislative misbehavior" on Congress's part, the term complies with the "limited Times" restriction. The Copyright Term Extension Act was ruled a
Re: Great news everyone! I have a patent on everyt (Score:3)
Coke's REAL weapon is trademark law. If somebody started selling a beverage that tasted exactly like Coca-Cola, but never represented it as tasting like Coke or having anything to do with Coke, there's very little Coca-Cola could actually DO to stop them.
The thing is, it would only be a matter of time until some employee was overheard claiming to someone that it WAS the same as Coke, and Coca-Cola could sue them into oblivion based upon the actions of that employee.
That said, AFAIK, Coca-Cola is the ONLY co
Re: (Score:3)
And that's what Regulatory Capture looks like when it grows up. Effective legal monopolies are the dream of every CEO, and we seem intent on making more of that happen under the guise of "protecting the little guy from corporations through additional regulations" (which may even be true for the first few years).
Re: Great news everyone! I have a patent on everyt (Score:4, Informative)
Tell that to Red Bull [time.com]. You're mostly right -- there are only certain companies licensed to trade in coca leaf, probably because it'd be too easy otherwise to trade coca leaf under the cover of it being de-cocanized coca leaf -- but Stepan can sell to other beverage makers besides TCCC. [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't Constitutional rights trump pretty much everything else, period?
Evidently the 9th circuit court and state of California disagrees.
Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D): "This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution"
Re: (Score:2)
When did the Supremes start practicing law? When did they reform?
Re:Great news (Score:5, Interesting)
Well if you are going to invalidate a US Congressional Approved Law that was Signed by the President of the United States (2 out of the 3 parts of the US Checks and Balances). You better be sure that you have as much data to prove your case to the Judicial System as possible. Poorly presenting your case and if it goes to the Supreme Court and your loose makes it nearly impossible to fight the case again.
Much like how the conservatives fought over states rights for same sex marriages, in essence caused it to be legal in the entire state, because their defence of their stance wasn't backed up. If they didn't bring the case up, they may had a chance keeping what they perceive as a problem limited to only those LiBeRaL states.
Re:Great news (Score:5, Informative)
So finally, in 2015, the Library of Congress met and rejected certain things that seem quite reasonable and defensible under the first amendment. In response, the EFF is not only asking that those things be approved, but also that the entire "Library of Congress as gatekeeper" thing be ruled unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
The LoC gatekeeping thing is just cannon fodder to placate the masses so that exceptions to the DMCA get temporarily lifted for three years. There is no intention to do anything other than feed the sheep a temporary respite while the vast majority of things keep going indefinitely.
Re: (Score:2)
Much like how the conservatives fought over states rights for same sex marriages, in essence caused it to be legal in the entire state, because their defence of their stance wasn't backed up. If they didn't bring the case up, they may had a chance keeping what they perceive as a problem limited to only those LiBeRaL states.
You mean "that thar passage in the bible told me so!" isn't a valid legal argument?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is hard to sue the government.
First, you have to have standing. You can't just go "oh, this law sucks and would affect me so I'm going to sue." You really have to wait for the government or third-party to prosecute you, then defend yourself. Then you *might* have standing to sue the government. Also, you need to have a better case than "I wanna watch anime in my Mom's basement." So far, many security researches have either not been sued, or they haven't stood up to defend themselves.
It is al
Re: (Score:2)
Why the DOJ? Who do you think is charged with enforcing the criminal penalties (5 years/$500K) in the DMCA?
Why sue Loretta Lynch (Score:5, Informative)
I am unsure why the DOJ is on the list.
Because the law has criminal penalties. Suing the sitting Attorney General for an injunction on enforcing a law is the standard legal fiction used to challenge a criminal statute's constitutionality in the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the explanation. They sue the enforcer so they can get the injunction. Got it.
Re: (Score:1)
Representatives of the MPAA/RIAA inform the US Gov't of the bad news over a free cup of coffee. US Gov't: "Yawns".
Dear manishs (Score:5, Informative)
You might want to put a link to EFF's donate page [eff.org]. Thanks.
Need to get trump on board (Score:2)
Need to get trump on board
Re:Need to get trump on board (Score:5, Funny)
and then on the plank . . .
Re: (Score:1)
Har har. Enjoy your pathological liar and her rapist husband.
There are, in fact, some actual reasons one might dislike Hillary Clinton. But stating that she has a "rapist" husband-- that is, making shit up--pushes me the other direction. When the arguments that people come up with to not vote for her with are made-up garbage, it tends to make me think better of her, not worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being that the DMCA was signed by Bill Clinton. I bet you can use that as an argument to go against it. However I think (And I am too lazy at the moment to look it up) at the time the Legislative branch was republican controlled, but why let facts get in the way of political postering.
Voice voted bills are veto-proof (Score:2)
A veto from President Clinton could not have stopped the Digital Millennium Copyright Act from becoming law, as it passed both houses through voice vote. A voice vote requires 80 percent assent in each house, a veto override only 67 percent.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Passed the House through voice vote. Passed Seante by "unanimous consent" (that means everyone, in both Parties, thought it was a great idea.
Note that one of the "features" of a Voice Vote is that there's no record of who actually voted for/against it in the House.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone published statistics of how often an override succeeds after a voice-voted bill is vetoed?
Re: (Score:2)
We get stuck on the left vs right thing way too often. There should also be some words that indicates whether the pol is a corporate jackass or not. Bill and Hillary are definite corporatists. So is Trump, but he's also a dangerous idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a word for that. It's 'politician'.
repeal a law? (Score:1)
Well, the federal government has not, with very few exceptions, ever repealed or reduced any laws.
I don't expect this to be changed. Lobbyists, greedy congressmen, and the strangely rigid-standing FBI (stick up the ass)
will fight any change that they see as detrimental to their well-being.... or profit... or perks, whatever.
There's an excellent reason for that. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> Now, we have the DMCA - a law we must collectively have agreed to, as it is no long merely a bill but a law.
I call bullshit on this. If we did have representative democracy that time is past. Now it's a charade. I know that the rep for my Congressional district affectively is a representation for ALEC, the US Chamber of Commerce, and other entities that give him campaign cash. I wouldn't say that DMCA is something at this point in history that we collectively agreed to. Supreme Court cases like Ci
...in theory... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We all agreed to the law
We certainly did not all agree to the law. I'm one of those who never agreed to it; I'm certain there are plenty more.
or at least, in theory a majority of us enacted this law
Closer, but still not accurate. There was no popular vote on this specific issue, and no expression of active support by a majority of the population.
Now, we have the DMCA - a law we must collectively have agreed to, as it is no long merely a bill but a law.
Only if by "must collectively have agreed to" you actually mean "supported by a majority of voting representatives, selected in many cases by a plurality (not majority) of voters in their districts on the basis of a variety of issues having not
What about enforcing anti trust and other laws (Score:3)
What about enforcing anti trust and other laws so the DMCA abuse does get as bad as it is? Or you do want an apple car that must do oil changes each 3000 miles at the dealer with an a cost of $100-150 or the car will go in an limp home mode?
Good luck, and godspeed! (Score:1)
the complaint (Score:5, Informative)
Their argument in brief: those provisions of the DMCA are preventing people from expressing themselves (free speech) which violates the first amendment. The Library of Congress is supposed to approve various exemptions to the DMCA for the purpose of research (or other), but the LoC failed to do so (in 2015). Even if the LoC had correctly fulfilled their duty, having them as a gatekeeper on what speech is allowed violates the first amendment.
This is a great lawsuit, I can't wait to see what the government's response will be. Incidentally, there is a third plaintiff besides the two mentioned in the summary, a company called Alphamax (but I've never heard of them).
Re:the complaint (Score:5, Funny)
The government's response? LOL, you Republicans crack me up. We elected President Hope & Change 7 years ago in case you forgot, and we now have the most transparent government in history which works for the *people*, not big Republican-donating industries like the movie industry.
The government's response will be quite predictable: the EFF is correct and we need to quit enforcing these Republican corporatist crony laws right now!
I can't wait to see the looks on those Hollywood Republican's faces when Obama tells his Justice Department lawyers to give it to them good and hard! For the People!
Re:the complaint (Score:5, Insightful)
The government's response will be quite predictable: the EFF is correct and we need to quit enforcing these Republican corporatist crony laws right now!
You're being sarcastic, but the reality is the government does have to respond, and they do have to give an answer that seems halfway reasonable, which actually, in this case is hard. So if you're the kind of person who likes reading legal fights, this is a moment to sit back, relax, and enjoy the show.
Especially since the outcome is likely to be so good.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll probably claim national security or some other bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a case when you can only enjoy the show after the show is concluded and you know how everything turns out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the complaint (Score:4, Insightful)
Hollywood (Score:2)
Hollywood supports Republicans? Really?
Some do, some don't. Hollywood is not a person with a political stance; it's a place that has people in the film industry on all sides of the political spectrum, ranging from Mel Gibson to Jane Fonda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"For every celebrity Bernie Sanders supporter there’s a proudly Republican Adam Sandler, and for every heart-flutteringly queer Freeheld there’s a jingoistic, pro-War on Terror action thriller (think The Dark Knight and American Sniper)." [thedailybeast.com]
http://www.alternet.org/story/153041/why_'liberal_hollywood'_is_a_myth
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/hollywoods-real-bias-is-cons
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't looked it up for a while but all the figures I've seen (monetary contributions) have backed up the stereotypes in all these industries (including Hollywood).
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood supports Republicans? Really?
Whoosh!
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, while the Republicans like this kind of law, they don't like it as much as the Democrats do. BOTH major parties are on the take from various groups that support this kind of law.
But the Democrats are worse, about this, than the Republicans. The sponsors of the MPAA and the RIAA give more to the Democrats.
Re: (Score:1)
"And these are your reasons, my lord?"
"Do you think I have others?" said Lord Vetinari. "My motives, as ever, are entirely transparent."
Hughnon reflected that 'entirely transparent' meant either that you could see right through them or that you couldn't see them at all."
-- Terry Pratchett, The Truth
Re:the complaint (Score:5, Informative)
So, for the sake of fleshing that out, can you tell me how exactly does DRM prevent people from expressing themselves?
The complaint gives some practical examples:
*) If you want to check a TPM for malicious software, you can't do that.
*) If you want to change mobile carriers, you can't do that
*) If you want to use a portion of DRM proctected film in your own film (as part of a narrative etc), you can't do that
*) Format shifting is not prevented
*) Matthew Green is a security researcher, and has written books on the topic. He wants to research vulnerabilities in medical devices, but can't do so because of the DMCA.
*) The complaint alleges that numerous times, such research has been prevented by lawsuits (although it doesn't enumerate them here, that isn't required in a complaint)
*) These lawsuits prevent Green from writing a book telling other people how to do this kind of research
*) Bunny wants to decrypt the HDMI signal. They gave many examples, but here is one that gives the flavor: you could decrypt the signal, overlay live commentary text from a blogger live-blogging the event, then send the signal on to the TV. Right now that is illegal.
MPAA encourages cams (Score:2)
If you want to use a portion of DRM proctected film in your own film (as part of a narrative etc), you can't do that
For educational fair use, the MPAA encourages teachers to cam the monitor [arstechnica.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am watching a video of someone watching a video of someone recording a video of a video.
MIND.
BLOWN.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose a contrived example:
A person is in such a position, that they need to communicate with someome, and can only do so by either violating copyright, or by circumventing a technological restriction.
(A poignant example can be seen in the otherwise horrible movie short circuit 2. A scene in the movie has Ben jiavari and his former coworker trapped in a freezer at doo wa's Asian restaurant. Ben cobbles together a tone generator and sends distress messages as short musical phrases from popular music that gi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder if they have anything to do with Betamax
I found out lol, it's the company owned by Bunny.
OTOH (Score:3)
I, write right here: that manishs, does not know, how to use commas.
On the 'promote the Progress of Science...' thing (Score:2)
What has got lost is the 'promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts' bit. The 'by securing' bit has become a religious dogma. In the modern world, examples like Free Software show how the current 'implementation' does not fulfil the aim of 'promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts'. In the light of the relatively modern invention of modern computing, the 'by' but (the implementation) needs a serious rethink. But those who benefit disproportionately are economically bound to campaign to move
Library of congress (Score:3)
So why isn't the library of congress making these exemptions?I usually think of librarians as being pretty good guardians of research and free speech. It seems like the LOC does not follow that spirit.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone who works at LOC is actually a librarian by training or in job role. Congress has added responsibilities to it which are related to, but not actually what you'd expect a library to do.
So, it's basically a government agency that happens to have some librarians working for it. Sort of like the Secret Service having been created to stop counterfeiting, which they still have jurisdiction over, but they are much more high profile as bodyguards for the President and related VIPs.
DMCAis flawed (Score:4, Interesting)
It should provide safe harbor protection without requiring content take down notices be processed. For example of abuse look at the Gavin E Long videos on YouTube; he filmed himself and uploaded blog videos as the sole owner of the videos. Then he died after doing a mass shooting. In response provocateurs submitted fake DMCA copyright claims and now all the videos are offline, but only he could access his account to submit counterclaims to have the videos put back up. YouTube follows the DMCA which requires the videos or content to be taken down even if the request is invalid, because without the due process checks of a judge or jury there is no way to know if the content is infringing or not.
No one but Gavin could defend himself but in the case a judge or jury were involved, they might never issue take down orders because the requests were obviously frivolous.
obamasweapon.com [obamasweapon.com]