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

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#41

Post by pjc50 » 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…

The purpose of legislation isn't relevant, only the effect of the legislation. And the effects are the problem; potentially any debugger could be considered a "circumvention tool". Just like scope creep has caused laboratory glassware to be considered illegal "drug paraphernalia" in places.

1201 also has the effect of banning circumvention that does not infringe copyright. Which is supposedly addressed by the weird adhoc Library of Congress exemption system, but only in a very limited set of cases.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#42

Post by thinkMOAR » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:38 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #34

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.

Yes and that should worry people, that so often laws are taking into effect that nobody wants and you have to sue to get it undone, correcting HOPE you can get it undone, which i don't remember many cases of that it actually worked out the way people wanted it.

Don't get me wrong, great that a person can, but that shouldn't even be needed... in my opinion, utopia

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#43

Post by belorn » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:38 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…

The DRM is not in products that the company own. They sold those products, knowingly, rather than renting them out as a service. Companies should have no right to "protect" lawfully-purchased products against usage by the person who legally bought it.

If they want to sell something and still remain ownership rights, then do what every company in history did before software DRM: rent it out as a service. A car bought, and a car rented, has natural right differences which is being erased by DRM.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#44

Post by Svenskunganka » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:39 PM UTC

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.

But if this suit is successful, it would mean that Section 1201 violates your First Amendment rights which in turn means that EULA also violates your First Amendment rights.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#45

Post by emodendroket » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:40 PM UTC

thinkMOAR wrote: post #42

emodendroket wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes and that should worry people, that so often laws are taking into effect that nobody wants and you have to sue to get it undone, correcting HOPE you can get it undone, which i don't remember many cases of that it actually worked out the way people wanted it. Don't get me wrong, great that a person can, but that shouldn't even be needed... in my opinion, utopia

Which people are you talking about? This is done pretty regularly but generally judicial review tends to favor conservative interests.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#46

Post by ethbro » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:41 PM UTC

6stringmerc wrote: post #21

fweespeech wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am curious why, if they actually believe they have a good chance of success, this is only being filed now rather than in prior years? Has something changed? You need standing and money to sue. Based on the EFF release: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca-se... > EFF is representing plaintiff Andrew “bunnie” Huang, a prominent computer scientist and inventor, and his company Alphamax LLC, whe…

So you're telling me Andrew Huang's business model is to make derivative content devices, for profit, without permission or compensation from the original creators and/or rights holders? I don't find this litigant to be sympathetic in the least (the second one, Green, is much more reasonable - though redundant to the John Deere case going on). My initial impression is that I might actually want Huang to lose, if the…

> their paid video content

There are a large number of situations where you have to break protection mechanisms on content you've legally purchased in order to exercise your previously existing and legal rights to use it as an owner.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#47

Post by venomsnake » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:43 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…

If a Maniac has made unauthorized modifications - Maniac gets sued and does jail time. Tesla is fault free.

You shouldn't be able to sue a tool manufacturer for misuse of a tool.

If you cannot sue Mercedes for a case when a driver with after market tuning kills someone in a crash, why should Tesla be liable?

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#48

Post by thinkMOAR » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:44 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #45

thinkMOAR wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and that should worry people, that so often laws are taking into effect that nobody wants and you have to sue to get it undone, correcting HOPE you can get it undone, which i don't remember many cases of that it actually worked out the way people wanted it. Don't get me wrong, great that a person can, but that shouldn't even be needed... in my opinion, utopia

Which people are you talking about? This is done pretty regularly but generally judicial review tends to favor conservative interests.

The people, citizens. Though i'm curious what kind of laws are rolled back in the US because a citizen decided to sue to government. Do you have any nice examples (preferably of some law effecting many but sued by just one person?)

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#49

Post by hlandau » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:44 PM UTC

This post about the damage inflicted by 1201 reminded me of another 1201: Halon 1201, banned because it depletes the ozone layer. A serendipitous coincidence, with this post talking about 1201 like an ecological threat.

More seriously, the GPLv3 contains an interesting provision. Search for "Anti-Circumvention" in this to find the section: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0-standalone.html

The second paragraph is probably enforceable, but I'd be interested to hear from someone suitably informed whether the first paragraph has any basis. How far can it be taken?

For example, one of the most insidious things about the Blu-ray format is that unlike DVD and HD-DVD, commercially pressed video Blu-rays are obliged to use AACS. Theoretically non-AACS discs could be pressed and work, but the replication plants aren't _allowed_ to print non-AACS video Blu-rays. This has caused some consternation where people want to distribute Creative Commons/etc. video on optical media, more than can fit on a DVD. I think I recall Archive Team talking about just having to resort to putting video files on a data Blu-ray instead.

If someone made a film, put "Neither this work nor any derived work can constitute an effective technological measure for the purposes of the WIPO copyright treaty or any corresponding legislation" in the credits, and then someone else got AACS'd Blu-rays made of it, would 1201 thereby not prohibit breaking AACS specifically in the context of that Blu-ray? It seems rather dubious.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#50

Post by alexbock » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:45 PM UTC

gthtjtkt wrote: post #37

zekevermillion wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

I know this was said in jest, but given the (generally unfounded) fears some people have about microwaves and cellphones I want to point out that exposure to unshielded microwave radiation isn't going to cause cancer (at least not any more than anything else that heats you up could somehow cause cancer) because microwave radiation is non-ionizing; you would need at least ultraviolet light for that (and UV-C or X-rays would be most effective).

The biggest danger with strong microwave radiation would be boiling your eyeballs as they lack the cooling most of your body has but contain significant amounts of water.