Debunking (some) DMCA Myths 425
An anonymous reader writes "C|Net's News.com is running an article under their Perspectives section about some of the myth and hype surrounding the DMCA. The author talks about how the EFF is exaggerating the danger from the DMCA. The author mentions that although "the DMCA is both an egregious law and a brazen power grab by Hollywood, the music industry and software companies", groups like the EFF are not much better, engaging in "fear-mongering" and scare tactics to increase opposition."
Pointless article (Score:5, Informative)
Really. He probably had to fill a deadline and came up with this, knowing it would generate a lot of interest. First he says this:
Then he goes on to say "no wait a minute, it's not so bad, we can live with it". He goes on to say, basically, how he believes the line between "encryption research" and "trafficking in circumvention devices" is completely clear and bright.
Well guess what. It ain't. I don't feel like the line between code and speech is a clear one. He even acknowledges in his article that including code in a research paper is vital:
So, by his own words, the chances of a lawsuit are not zero if you include code.
And what is code? How about some pseudocode? How about a working copy of code, except some constants are changed? How about a complete working example of code, but only in the print version? If this print version later appears on the web in full, will the author suddenly be liable? (Remember, by their own words, they went after Skylarov because his name was in the copyright notice, not because he personally was trafficking in the device.)
He then goes on to mention all the recent news items (the HP flap, IEEE, etc) and dismisses them all by saying basically: well it's bad PR for these companies, so they'll withdraw their lawsuits. Well, no thanks, "bad PR" is a pretty thin safety net.
And I also sense a vibe that traditional security research published in a journal or university web site, with lots of verbage is okay, but a bugtraq posting from "Cyb3rH4xx0r" who lives in his mom's basement is not. Well personally, I learn as much from posted exploit code as I do from long-winded papers. And any smart person could generate one from the other. Which is why a researcher should be a afraid, even if they don't use code in their paper.
So I think a security researcher has every right to be afraid of the DMCA. We know exactly why: because 1) code is not always considered speech and 2) pretty much anything can be a "technological protection measure", from bits in a TrueType font (remember that one?) to ineffective LFSR's in DVD players. Put these two together with the DMCA and you feel the chilling wind.
(And that's not even discussing the awful "takedown" provision of the DMCA, which allows copyright holders to arbitrarily take down web pages and eBay auctions. I'm surprised we haven't seen more abuse of that one from people forging affidavits.)
Re:You're all missing the point of the article... (Score:4, Informative)
The EFF is certainly not made up of "activists that don't understand the impact of the laws they're protesting".
I used to be sort of "one friend removed" from one of the original founders of the EFF. When they first started out, they had no interest in becoming another political organization - at least in the traditional sense. They were as disgusted as most other people are with politics and the under-handed/sneaky ways in which they operate.
Unfortunately, they soon learned that you had to "play the game" in order to make changes happen in Washington. If you didn't develop a full-blown non-profit organization that actively campaigned for your causes, you got written off as "extremists" or just another blowhard with no "teeth" to back up your threats and warnings.
Anyone accusing the EFF of exaggerating their causes simply doesn't understand the mechanics of our political system. Especially when you deal with technical issues that the average senator/congressman only vaguely has his/her head wrapped around - you have to hammer your points home. Otherwise, your opposition surely will - and you'll look like you have a very weak argument, by comparison.
Oh Really? (Score:3, Informative)
well, us the "opponents" must be making things up and this entire site [cmu.edu] is a fraud
Re:really? (Score:5, Informative)
The program was also purchasable from within the United States from an Elcomsoft.com server hosted in Chicago (again, within the US...). Payment was handled through an online service located with the United States.
So, he was willingly distributing an illegal circumvention device within the United States, to Americans.
Re:Some people jsut don't get the real issue (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps Dimitry did something more then just give a speech?
-BrentRe:Astonishing... (Score:2, Informative)
Hold up (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, I must have missed that special issue of 2600 where they included the AOL CD-DeCSS combo CD-ROM.
I take issue with this because:
* 2600 merely published the source code to DeCSS. This is radically different from distributing a binary. The source is only a recipe, not the entire meal.
* The website only linked to where it was hosted and mirrored. The source was never available on the site itself, IIRC.
A bit of fact-checking wouldn't have hurt the author in this regard.
Re:Astonishing... (Score:2, Informative)
DeCSS was written for watching DVDs on Linux. AEBEX was written for reading books on PDAs, etc. Both scenarios fall well within the bounds of fair use.
Media bias rears its ugly head once again (Score:3, Informative)
"Actual violations of the DMCA can be punished with a civil suit for damages or, if done for commercial gain, prosecuted as criminal acts. The Justice Department indicted Dmitry Sklyarov because his employer, ElcomSoft, sold an e-book decoder that he helped to create, triggering the DMCA's criminal penalties."
So basically, this article is saying that DMCA is good as long as "true academic researchers" aren't threatened. Well guess what Mr. McCullagh, that's not the point! DMCA is a bad (unconstitutional) law because it unduly limits free speech and restricts basic personal freedom to do what you want with something that you purchased--such as editing movies for your kids to watch, extracting video/sound-bites, playing DVD's in Linux, making backup copies of media and videogames, format-shifting for use in different types of digital players, etc. DMCA is a law to enhance greedy media giants' / proprietary software companies' ability to manipulate and rip off consumers. That's all there is to it.
Re:Astonishing... (Score:3, Informative)
Banning deCSS doesn't hurt the people who use it to rip movies in the least. It hurts those who want to use it to watch movies, because they have a harder time finding it and using it.
(Replace cocaine with almost any substance or activity that is illegal, the analogy holds)
Once you make something illegal, most people who have legimate uses would find a substitute. So it's a vicious circle.
Now, you may certainly argue that ripping and trading movies is fair use. There is some argument to be made there. However, currently such activity is not fair use, and is illegal.
Ripping movies is fair use - trading them is not. That is current law.
rebuttal to Declan's article (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wolf in Sheep's Clothing:This Isn't the First T (Score:3, Informative)
Were it not for his past behavior, and his willingness to damage and even destroy people for his own personal gain, I would probably agree.
But having been witness to his willingness to sacrifice others for his own personal benefit, and seeing the damage he is now causing to those trying to resist the revocation of our digital freedoms by the media and copyright cartels, I am forced to conclude that his shift is nothing more than a cynical adjustment in his career strategy.
As the the legitimacy of his "analysis" of the DMCA, others on this site have more thoroughly debunked that, and anything I say would be very redundant.
But I guess you'll have to take my opinion with a grain of salt, since my karma has been reduced to zero.
Karma is meaningless, and I for one do not dismiss your opinion. You sound like a reasonable, thoughtful person who, I believe, has been misled by Declan's legendary charm. Most people who are tend to remain so, until they themselves feel the knife stabbing in their back.
As for the LiViD issue, I refer you to the archives, where you can make your own judgement as to the events (you will also note that I defended Declan on that list, something I have long regretted in retrospect)
LiVid Archives (November 1999) [archive.org]
See also the previous couple of months for more background information, if you are really interested.
Some comments include:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000815215028/livid.o
http://web.archive.org/web/20000817190115/livid.o