[QUOTE]Washington D.C.—The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sued the U.S. government today on behalf of technology creators and researchers to overturn onerous provisions of copyright law that violate the First Amendment.
EFF’s lawsuit, filed with co-counsel Brian Willen, Stephen Gikow, and Lauren Gallo White of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, challenges the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the 18-year-old Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). These provisions—contained in Section 1201 of the DMCA—make it unlawful for people to get around the software that restricts access to lawfully-purchased copyrighted material, such as films, songs, and the computer code that controls vehicles, devices, and appliances. This ban applies even where people want to make noninfringing fair uses of the materials they are accessing.
Ostensibly enacted to fight music and movie piracy, Section 1201 has long served to restrict people’s ability to access, use, and even speak out about copyrighted materials—including the software that is increasingly embedded in everyday things. The law imposes a legal cloud over our rights to tinker with or repair the devices we own, to convert videos so that they can play on multiple platforms, remix a video, or conduct independent security research that would reveal dangerous security flaws in our computers, cars, and medical devices. It criminalizes the creation of tools to let people access and use those materials.
Copyright law is supposed to exist in harmony with the First Amendment. But the prospect of costly legal battles or criminal prosecution stymies creators, academics, inventors, and researchers. In the complaint filed today in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., EFF argues that this violates their First Amendment right to freedom of expression.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca-section-1201-research-and-technology-restrictions-violate[/url]
Every humble bundle I put 100% of the money towards the EFF, exactly because of reasons like this.
I love how certain people would prefer it if they could sue you into a fucking grave over even ~10 seconds of song in a video being used or even sung
this is why EFF needs to exist
[QUOTE=J!NX;50917720]I love how certain people would prefer it if they could sue you into a fucking grave over even ~10 seconds of song in a video being used or even sung
this is why EFF needs to exist[/QUOTE]
Indeed, most countries already have laws about breaking copy protection to be able to use it for fair use purposes.
Its hard to comprehend the full extent of damage done by this section of the DMCA. Just to make it clear to everyone, this section makes it unlawful to circumvent DRM in any software DRM exists. This applies to DRM of any strength, and applies to any hardware with software DRM at the basic level. In other words, because of this section and because of the continually declining costs of microcontrollers anyone can put the most paper thin level of DRM on anything, think IOT lightbulbs, earbuds, electronic (door/safe)locks, anything.
Now, because this paper thin level of DRM can easily and cheaply be implemented on everything you purchase, it becomes illegal to test the security on things you own. That electronic lock? try to test your own home security, you are in violation of 1201. Any security researcher who is testing certain brands is in violation of this law. For this reason, most security researchers break this section anyways, but must skirt around and obfuscate their methodology or risk attack by the "copyright owner". Additionally, any researchers who "cross" a copyright owner runs the risk of being punished for something pretty much every security researcher does just to do their job. Obviously, the irony being that these paper thin DRM schemes can effortlessly be bypassed by any real criminal who also doesn't need to worry about publishing their work to get security holes filled.
While security is the biggest problem with this law, there are obvious consumer rights implications, with these drm schemes being on more and more home appliances you suddenly run afoul of the law if you try to modify any of it. Internet of things lightbulb? Now, modifying your own lightbulb is a copyright violation. Same goes for fridges, blenders, and of course more standard electronics like printers. Crack into your printer and find a software planned obsolescence timer of some sort(this is already being done through software on ink cartridges)? Try to report it and they know you violated their copyright to find out and can be countersued. Here's a very real world example, buy a new Krueger coffee machine only to notice they have a DRM scheme on their coffee packets? Bypassing it violates copyright under this law. I could go on and on.
It is absolutely crucial to the future of security and consumer rights that the EFF win this.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;50918251]a long and educated post[/QUOTE]
It's always instantly hilarious when you only screw over the people who should be protected tbh but not the people you want to go after
EI: like a law that hit people who accidentally buy bootleg data, but doesn't hit the people who sells it
every single law that does that needs to be scrapped.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.