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."
Fear factors? (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh sweet lord... (Score:1, Insightful)
Can everyone try to be somewhat mature in their responses, instead of just trying to flame everything said?
Remember, its easier to get into the consumers heads when you are cool and calm. Just going off makes you look immature, and gets you ignored...
It's a shitty law, face it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
To which I say, laws have been stretched by powerful interests much farther than the DMCA will have to be to create a chilling effect in the past, and while the EFF may be "exaggerating" the issues, the author does nothing to challenge the fact that nastgrams based on the DMCA can and are being used to curtail research.
Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, isn't that how the DMCA got passed? Some people said something was pure evil, and did everything they could to try and stop it... except they did too much.
Hmmm....
Fear mongering (Score:3, Insightful)
I grant you that the EFF may be doing some exagerating, but not much.
Look at Felton's case. He was sent a threat, but when an opposition was made, the RIAA essentially said, "we didn't mean it" and "you misunderstood us."
Now what is commercial distribution and profit? You have link to a site that has an advertisement, is it commercial? I have seen a case that ruled linking to a site that has advertising makes a site commercial. What about a Amazon referrer link? or a Vonage affiliate [vonage.com] link? does that
you commercial?
It is not the actually application of the DMCA being the problem, but the threats that spring from the vagueness of the law.
He knows not what he says... (Score:4, Insightful)
That may be well and true, but it misses the point. Lets assume Felton were sued. He is a professor. I assume he has a lawer. He certainly already had the publicity. For him a lawsuit is a mere annoyance. For someone like some young Russian programmer who comes to the states for a talk, a lawsuit is career ending. The mere fear of being sued, legimated or not, is enough to stifle any and all speech deemed fringe. That is the danger of the DMCA.
Re:really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dmitry was involved with a for-sale product that defeated e-book copyright restrictions, which clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the DMCA.
Re:really? (Score:5, Insightful)
But what was he arrested for? He wasn't selling his product, he was giving a talk about his product. A product that was not illegal where he lives.
You're all missing the point of the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
He's not saying the DMCA isn't bad. He's not even saying the DMCA isn't THAT bad.
He agrees that the DMCA is bad and a threat to some people, just not to everyone the EFF said it was a show-stopper to.
He also makes a very good point: Activists that don't understand the impact of the laws they're protesting don't present very convincing cases.
-l
Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Fighting a lawsuit is a slow process even when it is a slam dunk. The starting retainer for most of the lawyers that I've hired is $1000. That's not chump change. And then the cost of the case will run higher than that even if you settle the case within a year.
Then there is the time involved. Meeting with the Lawyer. Showing up for court. Putting your life and your family's lives on hold while you grind through the legal entanglement. Everything begins to revolve around the legal case; and if you are imprisoned, then it is very difficult to continue your career. How long do you have to stay in jail before you fall far behind the bleeding edge of technology? What are the costs of being publically arrested?
The media has certainly showed the arrests and then the convictions, but how many times does the acquital make the news? If it did how many folks would be able to link the person acquited to the original arrest?
The DMCA is a power grab, and I think it is very unfair and probably unconstitutional. But its power to motivate people lies in the uncertainty of the application of the law. There are too many grey areas for any sort of comfort,a nd so it will be left to the battle fields of the courst system to determine the right and wrong of the DMCA.
As the article pointed out, many of these fears may be unfounded or exaggerated, but how much of your life are you willing to bet on it?
Some people jsut don't get the real issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The bulk of this texts argument seems to be based on what has and has not worked in a court when defended but they fail to see this is only part of the point. We all know the mojority of small companies and individuals simply can't defend themselves in court so the DMCA threats are enough.
The DMCA gives the big boys a new threat to use. A friend of mine was recently held up at gunpoint in the store where he works, he explained to me that he was 99% sure the gun was a replica and yet he didn't laugh the guy off, any ideas why?
Sometimes a threat is all you need
Not a big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh sweet lord... (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, first off, I am not a consumer, and don't like being treated like one. But I digress.
Cool and calm (i.e. passionless sheep) is what allowed the DMCA to get passed in the first place. Far fewer people would be in opposition to it if it weren't so broad and vague. The fact of the matter is, it is so vague that it COULD be interpreted in many different ways. You can't say that there is a zero percent chance of something happening when there is nothing in the law to prevent it. The fact of the matter is, the DMCA was used as a big stick to threaten researchers to bow to corporate pressure. The threat was removed, but it was still possible that the researchers could have been prosecuted under the DMCA. All it is going to take is one case as precedent and the whole game is over, that is how our legal system works. Maybe the big entertainment companies are just waiting for the right opportunity to present itself.
And if you think that they won't prosecute someone under the DMCA, think again. It is a law, and they have legal right to do so. It doen't matter what the INTENTION of the law is, it matter what the law says.
Re:Courts aren't (necessarily) stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
So although I think that the courts are generally balanced, I think that the "chilling effect" has to be seen by looking at the broadest interpretation of the law.
Re:Lawrence Lessig (Score:5, Insightful)
In the article, Kerr is quoted as saying "If the public believes that the DMCA is stopping Professor Felten and other researchers from conducting legitimate research, then that is a major victory for opponents of the law." Well, the public believes that because it is true. Felten wanted to present a paper and was told by his employer not to do it. No matter what that article says about lawsuits being unlikely to succeed, the mere threat of a DMCA lawsuit seems to be enough when you're dealing with deep pockets.
I agree with the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Barry Goldwater (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bigger problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
2- Loser pays "reasonable" legal expenses, perhaps to be specified in statute (e.g. hire Johnny Cochran to beat a traffic ticket if you like, but don't expect the state to foot the bill), possibly subject to an "ability to pay" rule.
3- Harsher sanctions against barratry.
4- The full text of laws
Re:Oh sweet lord... (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, I'm with you so far.
It doen't matter what the INTENTION of the law is, it matter what the law says.
Oops, that's where you lost me.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV (yet) but I am related to a few, and I have been in a courtroom more than a few times. The simple fact is that it DOES matter what the intention of the law is.
Why else would it matter what the desenting opinion is in supream court cases? They are written because interpretation and intention are part off what differentiate the living-law coming from live judges from a rule-set that could be programmed into a computer.
So now you have MY 2 cents.
Re:Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You Are The Kind of Mark the EFF Likes (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll never understand why people dont consider whats at stake when people deceive others; quite often you'll find the most sincere and real message comes from the dude who has little to gain from yelling 'Fire!' You can find more insidious fear mongering than EFF's call-to-arms in any ad in Business 2.0 or Wired article
Honestly, when did people start becoming more tolerant of deception and FUD, so long as it was for the Good Nature of profiteering? Doesn't that seem a little backwards, or am I just confusing this issue with the time honoured tradition of masses stroking the egos of the already powerful?
Re:really? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Dmitry was involved with a for-sale product
> that defeated e-book copyright restrictions,
> which clearly falls under the jurisdiction of
> the DMCA.
Um, no.
From http://www.freesklyarov.org/background/:
>> According to the company's website, the
>> software permits eBook owners to translate from
>> Adobe's secure eBook format into the more
>> common Portable Document Format (PDF). The
>> software only works on legitimately purchased
>> eBooks and has been used, for example, by blind
>> people to read otherwise-inaccessible PDF
>> user's manuals, and by people who want to move
>> an eBook from one computer to another (just
>> like anyone can move a music CD from the home
>> player to a portable or car).
So the software was only for the legitimate purchasers of eBooks, and primary purpose of the software was to allow them to move the eBook to their other machine or to allow a blind person to read the eBook they bought.
The article states:
>> Start with the text of the DMCA itself. It
>> says, "No person shall manufacture, import,
>> offer to the public, provide, or otherwise
>> traffic in any technology, product, service,
>> device (or) component" that is primarily
>> designed to bypass copy-protection technology.
According to the article, the DMCA should not have applied to Dmitry. Prior to the DMCA, under fair use laws, Dmitry's software would have been as legal here as in Russia. Why was Dmitry even in jail?
The answer: it doesn't matter what the DMCA really says. What matters is what a company like Adobe thinks it says. What matters is what a company like Adobe can convince the FBI it says. What matters is what a company like Adobe can scare a professor, a security expert, a software maker, or an employee into believing it says. Who cares if that is really what the DMCA says? If you land in jail, even if a wise judge throws the case out and declares the law unconstitutional, you have still lost a part of your life, income, possibly your job and even your reputation.
The DMCA is a four letter recipe for a reign of corporate terror. Stupid sharks, you think 9/11 would have taught them terror is a no-no.
Bells are ringing: Mothra, Mothra! Every heart is calling: Mothra, Mothra!
Come on, Tok Wira, these sharks have gotta pay! New Kirk calling Mothra, we need you today!
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:3, Insightful)
my letter to the author (Score:5, Insightful)
let's say i live in Australia amd purchase $5000 worth of DVD's there. then, i move to california. normally, because of the regional encryption nature of DVD's, all of my DVD's would now be completely useless. now, let's say i'm smart and decide to break the encryption method of DVD's so that i could watch my own, purchased DVD's. under the DMCA, that would be illegal. so my rights to fair use are in the toilet. get the picture now? if we don't make a stand today, these laws will clamp down even tighter in the future, probably throwing our fair right use completely and utterly out the window.
i bet back in the mid 1700's, you were the guy saying, 'hey everyone, english tea is really, really good. let's not rock the boat. is it really so bad paying them unrepresented taxes? c'mon everyone, the english really are nice people afterall...'
by the way, i followed the felton case very carefully examining every detail. your rendition of the justice departments' views are warped and untrue. shame on you.
yes, yes let Allan Adler badmouth the EFF all day long. but, if what he says is true, than one might ask what the EFF's motive is to do such a thing.
look, the bottom line is that money is driving this whole thing. money is enough to take away our consitutional rights little by little. if we don't put a stop to this in the beginning, then we will all me telling our grandsons how much freedom we had in the 'golden days'.
What scaremongering, exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only people I've seen defending the DMCA are those who are ignorant of what it actually says, or who stand to benefit from it commercially. I have yet to come across anyone who is both well-informed about the DMCA, and doesn't benefit from it financially, who's willing to defend it. Which camp do you fall into: ignoramus, or profiteer?
I've got nothing against making a profit, but if you do it by bribing the legislature to illegally abrogate the rights of citizens, you deserve nothing but contempt. As well as bankruptcy, when consumers stop buying your unusable crap.
Re:Is the EFF accidentally PART of the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, the claim that the EFF is exaggerating the problems with the DMCA are most likely being made by those who don't fully understand how dangerous the DMCA is. Unfortunately, it's full effects may take many more years to become apparent to those who aren't already directly affected by it.
For the record, I'm not associated with the EFF, although I probably should be. ;)
DMCA is as far-reaching as EFF says it is (Score:4, Insightful)
If Kaplan sided with MPAA in the DeCSS case, then all the ridiculous nightmare DMCA scenarios are plausible. It's just a matter of someone being willing to press the button and then not backing off.
I remember a not-too-distant time when most people viewed Alan Cox's absurd imaginary situation where someone attacks him for disclosing Linux bugs, as being too paranoid and unrealistic. But then just last month, HP proved that it's not only the wacko EFF guys who view this sort of thing as possibly being covered by DMCA. HP lawyers saw it as a valid weapon in their arsenal.
So quit blaming EFF, Kerr. The Bad Guys have also seen how far-reaching DMCA's text actually is. For a moment there, even they thought they could use it to stop Felton. HP thought they could use it to supress information about True64. These people are not EFF plants. But they are clever and know that to minimize the chance of it being struck down, they have to push it incrementally, and slowly build up lower-profile precedents. You don't just throw the frog into boiling water; you slowly heat him.
Re:Astonishing... (Score:4, Insightful)
DeCSS is not allowing copying, it is allowing reading (without using the proprietary decryption software). Here reading includes de-scrambling so that the content becomes intelligible. But you don't need it to copy.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not possible to go too far in repealing the DMCA. Having the law completely eliminated is a Good Thing. ... Unlike protecting copyrights, eliminating the DMCA is clear-cut...
Actually, no. There are a couple of good parts to the DMCA.
For example, there used to be a legal gray-area where people had to worry about caching-proxies. Were they violating copyright laws? Nobody was sure, and the DMCA explicitly states that the answer is "no". I consider this to be a Good Thing [tm].
What people generally mean when they bitch that "the DMCA is evil" is that "Section 1201 of the DMCA is evil". This is the part of the law that deals with circumvention, and makes copyright violation a criminal violation, rather than a civil one.
Re:really? (Score:3, Insightful)
The line between fair use and piracy is a finer one than most people would like to admit.
If the DMCA made it illegal to move a book from place to place, then that alone is reason to get it repealed.
Re:really? (Score:4, Insightful)
That could apply equally well to the MPAA as it does to Al Queda.
A legal enterprise that manages to get away with bribery, extortion and destruction is fundementally no different than the illegal ones.
Re:Astonishing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Exaggeration is necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
The DMCA has already been used to threaten academics. What if I publish an article describing a means to circumvent copy protection, which someone takes and produces the code to do it, am I liable? I can definitely expect to be threatened by the media giants - it doesn't matter if the threat has merit, they have the money to bankrupt me in court and they know it. They'll contend that if I did not describe the method, then the code could not have been created in the first place.