Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Anticircumvention Laws Seen as Threat to Science 125

Posted by michael from the rattling-the-ivory-tower dept.
Scott_Marks writes: "Science magazine has a review by Pamela Samuelson on the effect of anticircumvention rules on the pursuit of scientific knowledge. The abstract: 'Scientists who study encryption or computer security or otherwise reverse engineer technical measures, who make tools enabling them to do this work, and who report the results of their research face new risks of legal liability because of recently adopted rules prohibiting the circumvention of technical measures and manufacture or distribution of circumvention tools. Because all data in digital form can be technically protected, the impact of these rules goes far beyond encryption and computer security research. The scientific community must recognize the harms these rules pose and provide guidance about how to improve the anticircumvention rules.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anticircumvention Laws Seen as Threat to Science More

Anticircumvention Laws Seen as Threat to Science

Comments Filter:

  • This is depressing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Nessak ( 9218 )
    But there is a good side to all of this:

    No encyrption = No annnoying formats for DVD/Audio. The people who are going to fight stuff like this the hardest are not scientists but recond and movie componies.
    • Are you sure you've understood the problem here?

      Tom.
    • No encyrption = No annnoying formats for DVD/Audio. The people who are going to fight stuff like this the hardest are not scientists but recond and movie componies.


      This is all wrong. This article is about the record companies using the DMCA to prevent legitimate scientist from examing encryption, publishing work, etc. The record companies are behind this, not fighting it.

    • But there is a good side to all of this:

      No encyrption = No annnoying formats for DVD/Audio. The people who are going to fight stuff like this the hardest are not scientists but recond and movie componies.

      I think you may have misunderstood the point of this article. This is not about restricting encryption, but restricting the circumvention of encryption. So this particular issue is one which exists at the behest of record/movie companies and other copyright holders. They want encryption, but they don't want to have to spend money keeping up with people creating workarounds for their (often rudimentary) encryption methods.

      You may be thinking of another live issue which is being discussed at the moment, which is the call for encryption "backdoors" to be mandatory. That is almost the exact opposite of this debate, but backdoors are not going to get the content companies too worked up. They don't care if the government can break the encryption on a DVD or eBook, as long as Joe Public doesn't have a convenient way of doing so.

    • No encyrption = No annnoying formats for DVD/Audio.

      Agreed, but this isn't what the story was about.. and how would you go about enforcing the law against encryption?

      "Look, no terrorist messages here. Just jpegs of pr0n."

  • Arguments like this can only be a good thing. It is much more likely that our government will listen to academics than people who write programs such as DeCSS.

    NOTE: It's not that people who write DeCSS and e-book decoders have a less valid argument, simply that in our governments eyes, university researchers have a bit more credibility
    • The scientific community must recognize the harms these rules pose and provide guidance about how to improve the anticircumvention rules.

      Translated to Slashdot-speak:
      D00d, DMCA is fsckin LAME! IANAL but we need to get this fscker struck down. I heard you can go to jail and stuff just for ROT13ing your name. There are real examples of this but I'm not gonna bother quoting them or posting links.

      • > > The scientific community must recognize the harms these rules pose and provide guidance about how to improve the anticircumvention rules.
        >
        > Translated to Slashdot-speak:
        > D00d, DMCA is fsckin LAME! IANAL but we need to get this fscker struck down. I heard you can go to jail and stuff just for ROT13ing your name. There are real examples of this but I'm not gonna bother quoting them or posting links.

        Funny you mentioned translation.

        I'm in a cynical mood today. I mean, I bet she gets paid a hell of a lot of money, and all she has to do is read Slashdot at +5, and translate into academicspeak.

        Nice work if you can get it. But I wouldn't dignify it by calling it research.

  • Hmm (Score:5, Informative)

    by AntiFreeze ( 31247 ) <antifreeze42@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Friday September 21, 2001 @08:45AM (#2329497) Homepage Journal
    I see these laws as a threat to anyone who thinks "Hmm, I wonder how that works."

    Scientists, hobbyists, you name it: everyone is effected by these laws.

    All that I can say is what hundreds of people have already said: write your congressmen and senators! Do NOT let these laws pass.

    • Do NOT let these laws pass.


      The article is talking about laws that have already passed...

    • First, some of the laws have already passed (DMCA et al). Some can still be opposed (SSSCA et al); the others can be repealed (or, more likely, struck down by the courts).

      Second, note who "I wonder how that works" is threatening to: anyone and everyone who believes in their hearts that finding out how things work is a waste of time. This may seem hard to believe to you and me, but dreaming is a learned skill, and most human beings on Earth - even most human beings in America - have had it drilled into them that dreaming is a waste of time, before they had a chance to seriously think about ways to improve their lives. They honestly think the world is supposed to be black-box and beyond comprehension.

      I wonder how long it will be before original thought itself is formally outlawed (with possible, and extremely limited, exceptions for expensively licensed corporate labs)?
    • Aahh.. exactly. Wish I could symlink the same reply to multiple comments. Just wrote another reply stating there's very little difference (if at all) between scientists and hackers, while the media and the govt polarize them at different ends.
    • "Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Denis Miller


      compare:

      "I could be wrong, but I'm not" -Don Henley

  • The article mainly restates what was previously done and known - no breaking news here. It may be interesting, though, because it's addressed to a different audience than, say, /.

    Nice reading if you were somewhere in a hole for the last 2-3 years. :)

  • Behold the technological dark-ages.

    It seems that people are getting too cocky, stubborn, and selfish to allow people to use thier ideas.
    This reminds me a lot of the general patent holders who don't say a word until they are completely sure they can make no more money off of another company.
    Research will be harder and harder to legally perform, and people will not want to do it any more. Technology advances will be a thing of the past. We won't even get to watch movies because we'll have to pay to decrypt them!

    I think it will soon be time to go crawl into a cave with a pizza and a knife.

  • Surely this will just hurt the industries that are arguing for these restrictions.. Research students studying encryption must make up a large part of the commercial encryption developer population, adding value to these companies by having figured out the in-efficiencies in previous encryption methods.

    • Surely this will just hurt the industries that are arguing for these restrictions. Research students... figure[] out the in-efficiencies in previous encryption methods.

      Corporations are no longer concerned with efficiency. Or rather, they've realized that criminal prosecution is more efficient than innovation. After all, innovation through research can cost millions--or even billions--of dollars. For a fraction of the cost, though, they can throw any sort of crap together into a product, convince Congress to pass a few key laws, and then let the government foot the bill for prosecuting anyone who points out any deficiencies in the products.

  • Quote (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lunk ( 80231 )
    Every article I read about anticircumvention laws and policies reminds me of the following quote:

    Bruce Schneier says, "It's not so much about what people can do, it's more about how they think. There's nothing anyone can do; trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. The sooner people accept this, and build business models that take this into account, the sooner people will start making money again." Schneier is the author of Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World (John Wiley & Sons, 2000).

  • Scientific American on Dmitry (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Friday September 21, 2001 @08:55AM (#2329541)

    There's a one-page article about Dmitry in the October '01 Scientific American.

    It makes the oft-made point that what he did wasn't illegal back home in Russia, but adds a further point that I haven't heard before: in Russia it is illegal to interfere with the user's right to make copies. A lawyer is quoted as saying that you could probably win a class action suit against Adobe in Russia.

    The article also touches on the depressing effect on science; the first sentence is -
    Imagine Carl Djerassi, inventor of the birth-control pill, arrested at an endocrinology conference in Japan during the decades before 1999, when oral contraceptives were illegal there.
    • Imagine Carl Djerassi, inventor of the birth-control pill, arrested at an endocrinology conference in Japan during the decades before 1999, when oral contraceptives were illegal there.

      You mean that Carl Djerassi was selling birth-control pills in Japan while they were illegal? I didn't know that...

      Seriously, the analogy doesn't hold because Dmitry was arrested because the Advanced eBook Processor could be bought in the United States.

      There have been far too many Dmitry supporters who have been messing with the facts to try and drum up support for Dmitry - this does not help as it makes it trivial for anyone who wants Dmitry to lose to rip apart pro-Dmitry arguments and make Dmitry supporters seem like fools to the average citizen, hurting support.

      I'd like to see the DCMA overturned, but lying about the facts isn't going to help it. Showing the injustice in the law might, but only if you ensure that the facts used are correct.

      (Note: this rant isn't really addressed to the parent poster but to the many Free-Dmitry supporters who have been mis-representing Dmitry's arrest as related to speech, or in this case mis-representing the case as being related to activities in Russia when the reality is that it involves the "importation" of the AeBP into the United States.)

      • Dmitry wasn't selling anything in the U.S. His company wasn't selling anything in the U.S. A distributor was reselling the product in the U.S. The reseller is the one who should have been arrested, if anyone.
        • Read this. [eff.org]

          Or, if you refuse to read through it, just read this:

          Based on the foregoing, I believe Dmitry Sklyarov, employee of Elcomsoft and the individual listed on the Elcomsoft software products as the copyright holder of the program sold and produced by Elcomsoft, known as the Advanced eBook Processor, has willfully and for financial gain imported, offered to the public, provided, and otherwise trafficked in a technology, product, service, and device that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumvention a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under Title 17, namely books distributed in a form readable by the Adobe eBook Reader, in violation of Title 17, United States Code, Section 1201(b)(1)(A) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.

          That is literally why he was arrested. For distributing an illegal program in the United States. It basically works that since Dmitry as a part of Elcomsoft imports the illegal software into the United States, he and the company are both guilty of illegal acts under the DMCA. I'm not sure why that works, but make no mistake - Dmitry was part of the trafficing of the software into the United States.

    • The Russian attitude seems sensible to me. There's little point in having legally provided rights if you then allow publishers to make up misleading statements ('no, you cannot record programmes from your set-top box') and technical obstructions to exercising those rights. Of course, in the US, the presence of a technical obstruction eliminates any legal right the user had...

      In Britain there are sometimes signs in shops promising free refunds if you're not satisified. All these signs have some small print at the bottom: 'This does not affect your statutory rights'. The shops could be in trouble if there were the merest hint that they were trying to alter or take away the rights granted to consumers under trading laws. Similarly it is illegal to put up a sign saying 'no refunds'. If it's not allowed to mislead consumers about their rights in this area, why is it acceptable to publish official-sounding 'licence agreements' which attempt to cancel rights explicitly granted by copyright law?
      • If it's not allowed to mislead consumers about their rights in this area, why is it acceptable to publish official-sounding 'licence agreements' which attempt to cancel rights explicitly granted by copyright law?

        Because it helps increase profits for large corporations, and in the U.S., that's more important than having laws which make sense.
    • > Imagine Carl Djerassi, inventor of the birth-
      > control pill, arrested at an endocrinology
      > conference in Japan during the decades before
      > 1999, when oral contraceptives were illegal
      > there.

      Actually, birth control pills were *not* illegal
      in Japan before 1999; it was simply not legal to
      prescribe them for birth control. Using them
      for other purposes (and they do have other
      purposes: they are used for control of excessive
      menstrual bleeding, among other things) was quite
      legal.

      Chris Mattern
  • Why are companies and governments pushing anti-circumvention laws....? What's the big deal here? What are they trying to hide? Back Doors? (See the encrytption backdoor threads).

    The way I see it, there's the e-book:
    I wouldn't read one. I can imagine the thought of paying $300.00 for a e-book reader, and then the thought of loosing my book that I paid just as much for a hard cover....
    I mean, does anyone really read e-books anyways? If you really want a book, get the real thing. The only way you loose that info is by leaving it on some beach somewhere. So why all the anti-circumvention? It's not like e-books had a chance anyhow?

    Now the dreaded MP3's:
    Has mp3's really hurt the cd sales? Was it really that bad?
    I have yet to hear of an artist going broke because his music was sooooo popular, but the cd's just wouldn't sell....

    Just some thoughts of a raving Friday lunitic

    Linuxrunner
    • Mm...laziness and greed, sez me. Greed: music/movie companies can't bear the thought of all those bits going around w/o money coming back to them for it; laziness because they are willing to come up with (relatively) crappy encryption/watermarking/protection, and then slap a lawsuit on anyone trying to break it, rather than spend the extra time coming up with rilly good methods. (IANACryptographer, but what I've read makes me think that the whole concept of nearly-unbreakable encrypted bits is a pipedream anyway...so maybe we should add a bit of old-fashioned Crack(tm) to their motivation.)

    • Why are companies and governments pushing anti-circumvention laws....?

      To create/solidify monopolies. It's a form of product-tying.

    • Why would you need a backdoor to a DVD or an ebook? Backdoors are so you can get access to the data that was encrypted... You can already do that with a DVD or an ebook, just not in a very useful format.
  • All scientists in industry usually end up having to sign some sort of non-disclousre agrement about there work (or have other restrictive stuff thrust upon us)

    The truth however, will always find a way.
    (As Gallelao (sp) proved when he said the Earth was round and the church refused to let him speak :-)))

    • As Gallelao (sp) proved when he said the Earth was round and the church refused to let him speak :-)))
      oops!
      That was supposed to say earth went round the sun
      *removes foot from mouth* ;-)

  • I'm not a cryptologist or someone that regularly creates new drivers or software. But, I wont stop reverse engineering. I'm working on making a linux app for a popular kids learning toy, so I am reverse engineering it's communications. I will publish my software and findings no matter what silly laws are in place. But, I will be publishing them anonomously and outside this country. That way the information is available and I am protecting myself from being arrested by the united states copyright infringement assult force..

    If there is any real solution to the problem of corperations buying laws I am sure it doesn't include how our government really works today.

  • Too early (Score:3, Funny)

    by Spankophile ( 78098 ) on Friday September 21, 2001 @09:13AM (#2329604) Homepage
    I must be half asleep still, I read that as

    Anticircumcision Laws...
    • I must be half asleep as well...

      I read Pamela Samuelson as Pamela Anderson and was curious how crypto and silicone were related.

  • In related news (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by wiredog ( 43288 )
    The Washington Post is reporting [washingtonpost.com] that Phil Zimmermann, the creator of PGP, has gotten hate mail in the wake of the WTC attacks.
  • I see a time where you will no longer be allowed to open the hood of your car... you could find out that the car manufacturer made design mistakes, you might copy the 'algorithm' (engine, transmission) if you happen to build cars yourself or - god forbid - use those parts to build your own car.How long will mechanical engineers be able to publish their research: Is a engine of type A better then one of type B build by another company?

    I doubt that something like that will happen: There are more people interested in the inner working of cars then those that care about what happens inside their computer. So the political pressure to keep cars 'open' is much higher.

    How can we increase the political pressure to keep reverse engineering open? The only way I see is by educating the non-geek masses that this is important. But how can this be done? The only way I can think of is by providing everyday examples of reverse engineering: like the car example I tried. Do you know any better examples?

    Regards,
    Tobias
    • Cars:
      Yes and no. Already cars are equipped with On-Board Diagnostics that can only be read by the dealer or special code-readers.

      The dealer gets $70 a pop to tell you what the car thinks is wrong with itself.

      The dealer then takes the opportunity to try and sell you a new transmission to make the codes go away.

      Three weeks of thinking the thing through, and it turns out to be spark plug wires- but with all the computerized crap, it doesn't fail as if it were spark plug wires, and here's why-

      First, all of the other computer controlled systems were over-reacting to account for the bad spark, so it didn't show the symptoms of bad wires, and

      Second, they now use 40kv on the wires instead of the lesser voltages they used to, so even tho the wire was broken, the spark was jumping the gap in the wire and firing the plug weakly and late.

      I predict a day when the manufacturers will only allow the car to be worked on at the authorised code reading stations to prevent people from not buying unneeded transmissions.

      And they still charge 80 bucks for plug wires for this car.

      The only way the masses become educated is after they feel the pinch when bad laws come into being. You can't educate them on what "might happen" because they're sure you're a crazy idiot, and such laws could "never happen" in their vision of America.
      • Wrong. Anybody can buy a reader for the OBD-II interface that is on 1996 and newer cars or more importantly build your own if you like.

        You can get the SAE document describing the interface for $80 or so (or you can do what I did and borrow it from a university library). Companies such as multiplex engineering [multiplex-...eering.com] and others sell interface blocks that convert the oddball OBD-II electrical interface on your car to RS-232 serial. Then you are free to write your own diagnostic software for your linux laptop. Most of the trouble codes are standardized but if you want more info get your car's service manual from HELM [helminc.com] or some other source.

        Of course I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the automotive aftermarket industry (i.e. repair shops) fought to make sure that you could do these things. And it seems like some fraction of car dealers have always been run by crooks (or idiots).

        • Even with ODB-I (and I think with ODB-II - haven't played with it yet), you can easily get the code by shorting the right test point and watching for flashing lights on the dash.

          Which brings back a memory:

          On my 94 Ford Ranger, for a test point for checking the ABS system, every manual I looked at was supposed to be in this one spot under the dash area, on the driver side - it was supposed to be a single yellow wire. I got under there, nearly threw out my back from the contortions (it would have been easier to remove the driver's seat!), and no single yellow wire! For a couple of days I looked around in various spots (the location was very vague, but I was certain it had to be under there) - then I finally found it - it was actually part of a plug - not a hanging wire - and the wire was ORANGE!!!

          AHHHGGGGGHHHH!!!

          Of course, it said the problem with my ABS was the fluid level sensor in the brake resevoir - and in order to get that part - it isn't sold seperately - it is part of the entire master cylinder piece - meaning to replace a simple switch, you have to drain the entire brake system!

          So far it has been easier to just pay attention to my driving, and use the brakes normally (my problem that led to my checking was that my anti-lock brakes didn't work, and when I used them, the ABS light came on and stayed on)...
          • You can replace the master cylinder with out having to drain the brakes.

            You undo the brake lines from the master cylinder, unbolt the master cylinder from the vacuum booster, and when you ready the new one, fill it up in the air, and pump the piston till fluid comes out the holes for the lines.

            the lines themselves are still full up and the holes in the master cylinder are primed..so you succeed in not introducing any air into the system without having to bleed the brakes all the way out after changing the master cylinder.

            And the 95 Chevy Lumina APV I was speaking about didn't have OBD-1 or II, it had it's own chevy thing that needed a $400 scanner to read.

            Snap-on and Matco also make readers for it, also for $400. No matter how you do it, it's a rip.
        • 95 Chevy Lumina APV's were different-
          some used OBD-II and some didn't.

          Mine didn't. It takes it's own funky reader that sells for $400 and you can't just go and buy documents on it.

          Matco and Snap-On make readers for it, but again, those also cost $400.

          Either way, it's a no win.
  • If how this might apply to circumventing the lamness filter, which makes posting a quick, relevent/informative link. I feel the lameness filter, in it's efforts to strangle trolls is not unlike these legal nooses.


    Just an observation.

  • We need more public commentary like this from folks in respected professions.

    Would the DeCSS case end result have changed if they weren't going after 2600 magazine, which is clearly known as an information source on how to break the law? (Regardless of their liability in the end.) 2600 was singled out for a reason; ethos. They lack it. It's not something that Joe Q. Public would acknowledge as legitimate and respectable.

    But the scientific community, there we have a body of people who have that innate respect and the credentials for their words to carry weight. That's the sort of dissenting voice we need to fight the DMCA since they will be listened to and their needs will be addressed.

    While the DMCA is flawed regardless and I'd say 2600 and the white lab coat type folks have equal justification, it's all about the spin and image of who's saying 'No' to it that matters.

    What other communities or professions which get instant respect from the general populace could be affected by the DMCA? Maybe those sectors could speak up as well.

  • The scientific community must recognize the harms these rules pose and provide guidance about how to improve the anticircumvention rules.

    No; the scientific community must completely abandon the field in the United States, and let us become a backwater third-world country in that particular field, with all the research that isn't done by the NSA being done in other countries.

    Ideally, a good percentage of the scientists would leave the country, but I wouldn't advocate that personally.

    When the US feels like rejoining the world in this field, our government will. In the meantime, all the information will be open to hackers, and it'll be just like a William Gibson novel.
    • What I want to know is, what country are these scientists going to go to, and can I emigrate as well?

      I love America as I have known it, but a country with laws such as the ones we see coming down cannot be called America, without insulting the freedom I have grown to love.

        • What I want to know is, what country are these scientists going to go to, and can I emigrate as well

        I'd have said Canada, but they're butt monkeying on any issue regarding security. Likewise, Australia has lost the plot completely, and don't even think about Europe, there's a super-DMCA in the works.

        That leaves New Zealand. Tough immigration laws, but it's definitely on my list.

  • Where would elasticity be, if there had been anti-circumvention laws in 1676? (Robert Hooke initially published his law, ut tensio sic vis, as an anagram: CEIIOSSOTTUU.)
  • This is really good!

    You know, I think scientists are starting to wake up. For one thing, the equally prestigious magazine Nature [nature.com] had a short note recently [nature.com] about Dmitry's case, which was clearly sympathetic towards him.

    Also, you have 27758 scientists signing the Open Letter of the Public Library of Science [publiclibr...cience.org], and you've got physicists publishing pretty much all their material as pre-prints [arxiv.org].

    I don't think the open systems that science requires to function can co-exist with the closed systems wanted by the entertainment industry. If an open system exists, it can always be used to circumvent a closed system.

    Now, it is easy to demonize "hackers" but it is harder to demonize scientists. Therefore, I think the first real battle will be over scientific publishing, and I want to be there when it happens.

    Now, I don't think it will be a battle between scientists and artists, though the entertainment industry may try to portray it as such. The openness established by scientists and scientific publishing will be good for the whole of society, stimulate cultural diversity, and art will flourish along with science.

    • Now, it is easy to demonize "hackers" but it is harder to demonize scientists.

      And if the government, media etc. had clue, they might realize those two are more or less the same thing...

      The last chapter of Feynman's book 'What do you care what other people think' deals with openness as the key to integrity in science, and as I read it I couldn't help thinking about open source.

      -- just another CERN hacker

  • improving anti-circumvention laws? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by firewort ( 180062 ) on Friday September 21, 2001 @09:40AM (#2329757)
    I'm sorry, but the only way to improve anti-circumvention law is by revoking it.

    Reverse engineering has value in gaining greater understanding of existing technology, maintaining, and improving upon it.

    If wily customers choose to violate warranties and license agreements, it certainly poses a problem for companies, but in no way should laws be passed to prohibit them, for the damage such laws do to legitimate research. If companies need a legal method of deterring such behaviour, let them sue for violating a license agreement that specifies no reverse engineering. They should not need, nor get, a stronger remedy.

    In fact, remedies like DirectTV used (the small incremental updates of ROM code that eventually locked out hackers) should be applauded. (Even if it was a bummer to those getting free services) DirectTV needed no legal recourse, but preserved their business through creative techological means.

    The point is simply this:
    Just because a company has made money in the past, there should be no law guaranteeing them that they will continue to do so in the future. It is not up to Congress to preserve the business models of corporations. That duty lies with a CTO, CIO, CFO, and board of directors.
  • Scientific inquiry relies on peer review to validate research, and when corporations/the government/research try to prevent scientists from publishing research, they short-circuit the process.

    Is this really all that different to what happened to Galileo? His scientific research was perceived as a threat to the established power structure.

    Add in the increasing corporate sponsorship to fill in for diminishing budgets for research, and we're headed toward a world with no concept of the public domain.

    Patents are not meant to allow firms hoard research indefinitely, but now that's what they have become. Now, instead of giving a reward for furthering the knowledge base for everyone, we've got a system where firms stake out concepts (like gene patents - don't get me started on those!) and prevent anyone else from trying to duplicate the work.

    All this is happening just at a time when it is slowly becoming possible for everyone on this planet to share ideas with every other person. What a shame we're all gonna get hamstrung.

    I'm waiting for my ISP to claim partial ownership of anything I transmit on their network. Why shouldn't I have to click "I agree" to giving away an interest in anything? It's their network, after all.

  • ...and how would we have broken Enigma in WWI if scientists weren't used to reverse engineering?

  • A Copyright Proposal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Grech ( 106925 ) on Friday September 21, 2001 @10:48AM (#2330110) Homepage
    It is clear, to both sides, that the copyright system is broken, although the two sides disagree as to how. What is needed is, I believe, some way to balance the intrests of the corporations on one side, and the people on the other.

    While I believe the most egregious pieces of the current trade alphabet soup need to be elminated, I think a longer-term solution would be the restructuring of copyright duration.

    Rather than making copyrights last for some large X number of years, or the life of the author + X years, why not make a copyright short term, but infinately renewable, at an exponentially increasing cost? This will allow corps to protect their most valuable content, while forcing them to relinquish claims on anything that does not sell enough to cover the cost of renewing its copyright.

    I do not claim to know what durations and costs would be required to make it work, here balancing the needs of the small publisher for protection, with the need for a large corps content to expire sometime, but I think it's an idea that's worth a thought.

    • Interesting idea with one slight problem: it is unconstitutional.

      Article I section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the right to grant authors exclusive rights to their works for limited durations. An infinitely renewable copyright (although probably not practically so because of the exponentially increasing costs) would be impermissible.

      If you wonder why copyright durations are so long (and why the copyrights on some key Walt Disney characters didn't run out a couple of years ago as scheduled) then ask Sonny Bono (The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act). But to ask, you'll have to read the legislative history of the Act. I don't think he is still commenting.

    • Well, for one thing, this proposal would allow the insanely rich to keep a lock down on their copyrights for ever... the small publisher gets very little (time-wise) protections while Disney keeps a lock down on everything it's ever spit out... and how fair is that to the public? We, the public, have made Disney what it is, you think it would be fair to distribute Steam Boat Willy free of charge...
    • Precisely because the most valuable content is what is most needed in the public domain. Not too many people care anymore if DOS 1 is made PD, nor would very many people be all that excited to learn that the copyright on Milli Vanilli's greatest hits had expired prematurely.

      Copyright is not actually necessary in a free market society. Interestingly, the trend in the United States seems to have been towards the deregulation of monopolies in almost every sector, except for the copyright monopolies, which have been consistently strengthened. Moreover, all other state-granted monopolies faced some kind of regulations.

      If copyright is allowed to stand, it should be treated like any other state-granted monopoly. Copyright holders should be considered common carriers, so to speak; a copyright holder would be obligated to license the rights to copy or make derivatives from their copyrights to anyone who paid the fees and complied with the regulations that would be set by law. Refusal would result in the forfeiture of the copyright. Regulations and maximum profits that could be derived from copyright would be fixed by law. (Which brings in the possibility that a copyright holder might decide that releasing their work into the public domain might actually be more profitable, in some cases, than holding on to the copyright.) Furthermore, the copyright holder should be required to provide a physical copy at a reasonable rate (fixed by law). in order to avoid the degenerate situation where a license to copy could be granted, but copy protection measures prevented exercising that right. If the copyright holder ceased publication of the material, it would fall into the public domain.

      Thus, for example, I could insist that I be able to purchase a copy of Windows 3.0 from Microsoft. If it couldn't or wouldn't sell me a copy, it would void its copyright over that particular item, at which point I could do whatever I wanted with it, providing I could find a copy.

      Copyright is really just another form of state-granted monopoly, so there's no reason that it shouldn't be treated similar to a telephone, electricity, transportation, or other government-granted exclusive jurisdiction.
      • A very interesting take on Copyright reform, but just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment -- what makes you so sure that just because some content "is the most needed in the public doamin" automatically means it should be turned over at no cost?

        I think this is the main reason you have a large number of people shooting for a less radical goal of limiting copyrights to only a few years or so (depending on the type of content, perhaps). I think most people can agree that new concepts generate the most revenue for developers during the first year or two they're on the market. A big part of Capitalism is allowing people to benefit from their hard work and development of new concepts/ideas. As much as all of us might prefer that all those great new ideas immediately get handed over to us at no charge, that will tear down the structure we have in place to reward people for their research/work.

        If copyright on software, for example, was limited to no more than 2 years - companies like MS could realistically make 99% of the profit they do today. (They release new operating systems and applications on practically a yearly basis as it is.) Non-profits, schools, students, and anyone else who can't afford the latest and greatest could still use software that cost hundreds of dollars per copy less than 3 years ago - and do just fine.
        • A very interesting take on Copyright reform, but just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment -- what makes you so sure that just because some content "is the most needed in the public doamin" automatically means it should be turned over at no cost?

          That's not quite the message I meant to convey. What I am suggesting is that the proposed system whereby rights holders would pay a fee for monopoly power instead of being automatically granted it is likely to only allow relatively uninteresting and un-useful works into the public domain early. That's better than the current situation, where it looks like nothing published after 1920 or so will ever enter the public domain, but it still means that the most interesting, popular, and important material will still remain unfree. It will still be the case that all of the central elements of popular culture and, increasingly, the langauges and protocols by which we communicate, will remain private property leased to the public, and that participating in the development of one's own culture (by building upon what has come before) will still be by invitation only.

          Disney would continue to hold on to Mickey Mouse with an iron claw, because it's way more profitable for them to leverage an 80-year old idea for even more money than it is to come up with something original for the first time in the better part of a century. Microsoft has long since stopped making a profit from Office 95, but there is no way they would willingly hand over the keys to it, or even to Word for Windows 2.0, becuase there's not enough value in their new products for most people to justify spending hundreds or thousands of dollars if older versions are in the public domain. Microsoft counts on lack of availablility and incompatibility between versions to force upgrades and make more money. It uses copyright to restrict availability of products it no longer wants people to have. It does this not only to protect its investment in R&D, but to protect its future revenue stream by ensuring that it can effectively unpublish software once it becomes a liability.

          It's also not fair to equate no copyright with people working for free. Most people don't work for free, including those who write software, compose music, or write copy. Copyright is not a cornerstone of the free market either. Copyright is a state-granted monopoly. Last time I checked, that was the complete opposite of the free market ideology. Because several industries have developed business models based on strong copyright monopolies, weakening or eliminating the monopoly power would adversely affect these businesses, at least in the short term. But that doesn't mean that copyright is sacrosanct. Neither BMG nor Disney have a right to continue operating under the current rules indefinitely (or under the even more favourable rules they lobby for); the market is supposed to be for the enrichment of the public as a whole. Everyone has the right to earn a living, but nobody has a right to demand a set of rules that allows them to make as much money as they want in the manner that they want, regardless of its effect on society as a whole.
  • The USA could sue us for copywrite and reverse engineering of their laws ;-)

    Don't laugh, it will happen, we don't have a governmet of our own so we need to copy others.

    And the law won't work for the US if others coutries don't follow suit, it will force r&d overseas, an example of which is IVF/Stemcell research in Aust. which went to Singapore and Italy after laws in '85 were implemented hampering research.
    • The Building Code set as law in many USA counties and such is copyrighted by some outfit or other, and everyone who wants a copy has to purchase it from that outfit. Therefore, laws ARE copyrighted and it's illegal to copy (some of) them. So it's not that funny; it's real!

      Sad indeed.

      "You're breaking the law, buddy, but since it's intellectual property I can't show you how. 10 years in pokey for you!"
  • I'm currently taking Professor Samuelson's Cyberlaw [berkeley.edu] class, and have been reasonably impressed with her degree of technical knowledge. While there are some in the area of Internet Law who are fairly clueless [ssrn.com], her opinions [ucla.edu] and commentary in class demonstrate a good understanding of how all this stuff works.

    Incidentally, this case [harvard.edu] really frightens me.

  • Interesting that congress seems to be working at cross-purposes to itself (but then what else is new...):
    On the one hand, it is looking for ways to increase the ability to view the contents of encrypted messages. On the other hand it is trying to decrease our ability to research methods of decryption...
    In the present (and near future) climate, I wonder which will win out?

    Given the 'new reality' after the WTC, I would think that Congress would be putting whatever efforts they could toward research that increases what they would see as the intelligence community's ability to monitor terrorist communications.

    In any case, they can't have it both ways.
  • If I write a virus, and someone cracks it, I can sue due to the DCMA?

    • Well, I'm sure that someone should sue Norton for making virus circumvention software.

      Perhaps if there was enough $$$ involved, a big player like MS or Intel could write a worm n sue them, then take over the antivirus industry n change the law :-P
  • Palm [peanutpress.com] for my Palm that I'd like to read on a different platform. That document seemed to be saying that I am allowed to reverse engineer the reader for the purposes of program interoperability. Does that mean I am allowed to crack the program (pretty trivial I guess seeing as all the decryption takes place in the executable itself and you can just single step through it) so that I can read it on a Desktop PC instead? IANAL but maybe someone who is knows the answer to my question.
  • ... only outlaws will be able to circumvent encryption, read our emails, watch free movies, launch ICBM's from their laptop, etc....
  • As increasing numbers of us bank, shop & work online it seems a little odd to introduce rules that mean we have to trust those that supply the banks, retailers etc. to come up with sound code. Time & time again code is released with holes, weakneses etc. Currently 'recreational'* crackers find & publicise these. If no one can legitimately check on the strength of encryption it, fewer will take the risk of exposing poor implementations & only those with criminal intent will find the exploits & shaft the rest of us. I'm not to bothered about being able to get a free ebook, but if the law is wielded carelessly it will put our money & our work at risk. Do you really trust comercial organisations not to make any mistakes??? Didn't think so. D. * as in for the challenge not the profit

Slashdot Top Deals

Enzymes are things invented by biologists that explain things which otherwise require harder thinking. -- Jerome Lettvin

Close