Why I’m Suing the US Government • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#31

Post by trishume » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

ryanswapp wrote: post #28

I studied section 1201 thoroughly during law school and I think this post doesn't give a fair characterization of it. The reason this statute exists is because companies were unable to devise protection for copyrighted works that hackers were not able to immediately circumvent. As a result, the government stepped in and created 1201 to make it illegal for someone to circumvent some form of access control that a compa…

But if you circumvent copy protection for the purpose of sharing copyrighted works publicly then you were already doing something illegal before section 1201. All section 1201 does is also make it illegal to circumvent copy protection even if you don't do anything else illegal under copyright law, like keep copies of movies you bought privately in a digital collection that you can back up, or using software that you payed for when you aren't connected to the internet. If we think circumventing copy protection for the purposes of copyright infringement is extra bad, why not just add additional penalties to additional copyright infringement?

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#32

Post by emodendroket » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

ryanswapp wrote: post #28

I studied section 1201 thoroughly during law school and I think this post doesn't give a fair characterization of it. The reason this statute exists is because companies were unable to devise protection for copyrighted works that hackers were not able to immediately circumvent. As a result, the government stepped in and created 1201 to make it illegal for someone to circumvent some form of access control that a compa…

Well, sure, that is the intent. Where people disagree is whether it's reasonable to criminalize breaking copy protection, rather than the act of illegally copying and distributing copyrighted content.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#33

Post by rayiner » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

Circumvention by itself definitely shouldn't be illegal, and it's probably unconstitutional to make building and researching circumvention mechanisms illegal. But I don't buy Step 2.

> EFF is representing plaintiff Andrew “bunnie” Huang, a prominent computer scientist and inventor, and his company Alphamax LLC, where he is developing devices for editing digital video streams. Those products would enable people to make innovative uses of their paid video content, such as captioning a presidential debate with a running Twitter comment field or enabling remixes of high-definition video. But using or offering this technology could run afoul of Section 1201.

It definitely should be legal to build those products. Maybe it should be legal to distribute that captioned video as fair use. But why should Twitter profit from a user captioning a video CNN created?

That's the part I have trouble with here. Fair use is fine and good, but there is a large universe of very profitable companies that don't make content of their own, but profit from other peoples' content. Of course they have a huge interest in weakening copyright protections under the guise of promoting fair use.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#34

Post by emodendroket » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:34 PM UTC

thinkMOAR wrote: post #30

If only they were the bully on the school playground perhaps you could fight him. But they are the playground, i wish you the best of luck.

Suing the government to stop enforcement of some law is a pretty well established procedure at this point.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#35

Post by filoeleven » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:35 PM UTC

A quick summary for those who don't want to click through without knowing what the lawsuit challenges:

Section 1201 contains the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions. These infringe upon fair use activities like format conversion, repairs, and security research.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#36

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:35 PM UTC

ryanswapp wrote: post #28

I studied section 1201 thoroughly during law school and I think this post doesn't give a fair characterization of it. The reason this statute exists is because companies were unable to devise protection for copyrighted works that hackers were not able to immediately circumvent. As a result, the government stepped in and created 1201 to make it illegal for someone to circumvent some form of access control that a compa…

[deleted]

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#37

Post by gthtjtkt » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:35 PM UTC

zekevermillion wrote: post #24

DanBlake wrote: post #12

Unfortunately I believe that even if the suit was successful, we would just see more purchases become 'perpetual licenses', skirting the updated law. IIRC, Tesla was very heavily against letting anyone tinker and went to some extremes to stop it. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see them make buyers sign a EULA in the future when you go to 'purchase' a vehicle.

I can imagine tinkering with a Tesla could cause some heartburn for Elon. There are safety issues, which are real. What happens when some maniac changes the software to make autopilot into full self driving, then plows into a minivan on its way to Little League practice? Also interesting, recently heard about a guy who can reprogram some diesel trucks to get better performance (probably at the expense of NOX emission…

> What happens when some maniac changes the software to make autopilot into full self driving, then plows into a minivan on its way to Little League practice?

We can't let these hypothetical worst-case scenarios be an excuse to stifle innovation.

What happens if we let people modify their microwaves and a terrorist uses his to give kids cancer!?!?

What if we let people tinker with their toasters and somebody uses one to electrocute a pool full of kids!?!?

Please, think of the children!

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#38

Post by marcelluspye » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:35 PM UTC

ryanswapp wrote: post #28

I studied section 1201 thoroughly during law school and I think this post doesn't give a fair characterization of it. The reason this statute exists is because companies were unable to devise protection for copyrighted works that hackers were not able to immediately circumvent. As a result, the government stepped in and created 1201 to make it illegal for someone to circumvent some form of access control that a compa…

I'm pretty sure everyone's aware of the stated purpose of the section. It's not like there were a bunch of execs and lobbyists sitting around going "there's too much creativity in the world."

But the intentions of the legislation don't change its consequences.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#39

Post by eigenmeister » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:35 PM UTC

6stringmerc wrote: post #15

Let's take a quick look at the understanding of Copyright law that this litigant seems to possess: > Before Section 1201, the ownership of ideas was tempered by constitutional protections. Under this law, we had the right to tinker with gadgets that we bought, we had the right to record TV shows on our VCRs, and we had the right to remix songs. Wait, before the DMCA "we" had the right to remix songs? Okay so this cas…

The major objection to 1201 is that it legally precludes what would be fair use in an unprotected work. Breaking HDCP, for instance, is still illegal for a use that would pass a four factors test.

Do you have a link on the John Deere suit(s) you mentioned? That's one I'd be interested in following.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#40

Post by JoshTriplett » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:36 PM UTC

ryanswapp wrote: post #28

I studied section 1201 thoroughly during law school and I think this post doesn't give a fair characterization of it. The reason this statute exists is because companies were unable to devise protection for copyrighted works that hackers were not able to immediately circumvent. As a result, the government stepped in and created 1201 to make it illegal for someone to circumvent some form of access control that a compa…

"protect" is a biased term. One person's "protect" is another's "control". You mentioned "access control"; however, copyright has nothing to do with access control. Copyright is not an unlimited right to control all possible uses of a work; DMCA 1201 turns it into one, by enshrining whatever access control restrictions a piece of software implements into law.

Ignoring fair use for a moment (which DMCA 1201 also breaks, so that's another problem), copyright restricts copying. DMCA 1201 produces a restriction on usage, which copyright does not control.

DMCA 1201 doesn't actually prevent you from copying a DVD, for instance. DMCA 1201 prevents you from reading and playing a DVD using anything other than software approved by the author of the DVD.