Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I’m Suing the US Government

bunniestudios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 327 posts

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#51

Post by ryanswapp »

pjc50 wrote: post #41
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 a…

Whether the purpose of legislation matters very much depends on a judge's beliefs regarding statutory interpretation. Enforcement of a statute is often all about the purpose of it. That said, I see your point and its a valid one. I'm just not sure I believe getting rid of 1201 will do less harm than good. I guess we'll see how the lawsuit turns out!

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#52

Post by gthtjtkt »

alexbock wrote: post #50
gthtjtkt wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mi…

Good to know, now I'll have something to say to my mom the next time tells me to back away from the microwave while it's on...

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#53

Post by olympus »

I think this is an important topic that needs to be addressed, but suing the government is doomed to fail. The federal government has sovereign immunity, and you can't sue them unless they decide that you can. They usually decide that you can't. Most laws aren't changed in the court unless someone is criminally prosecuted. Then your appeal case can move through the higher levels of the court until it reaches a level that the law can be struck down completely, or what usually happens is a legal precedent is set regarding a specific portion of the law.

So unless Bunnie has been prosecuted for breaking the DMCA, this is likely going to be an ineffective move.

If you want to change a law without breaking it first, the right way to go about it is petitioning Congress, the lawmaking part of the government.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#54

Post by athenot »

olympus wrote: post #53

I think this is an important topic that needs to be addressed, but suing the government is doomed to fail. The federal government has sovereign immunity, and you can't sue them unless they decide that you can. They usually decide that you can't. Most laws aren't changed in the court unless someone is criminally prosecuted. Then your appeal case can move through the higher levels of the court until it reaches a level…

Not necessarily. It can influence the change in legislation or enforcement thereof. Case in point: DJB vs. United States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#55

Post by knieveltech »

olympus wrote: post #53

I think this is an important topic that needs to be addressed, but suing the government is doomed to fail. The federal government has sovereign immunity, and you can't sue them unless they decide that you can. They usually decide that you can't. Most laws aren't changed in the court unless someone is criminally prosecuted. Then your appeal case can move through the higher levels of the court until it reaches a level…

You skipped the part where you form a lobby group with deep pockets before petitioning congress. I'm skeptical that petitioning will be any more effective than a lawsuit without that step.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#56

Post by dudifordMann »

eigenmeister wrote: post #39
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.

i think it relates to this:

[1] http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere

[2]https://theamericangenius.com/business-news/farmers-cant-leg...

it seems to concern the idea, as mentioned above, of ownership vs a permanent license of the goods purchased or in their minds.. leased?

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#57

Post by ryanswapp »

marcelluspye wrote: post #38
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.

Oh they very much do. Legislative intent is a major factor that many judges consider when enforcing legislation. Intent often has a very big impact on consequence.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#58

Post by belorn »

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 if I tinker with a regular car and put a nitrous oxide engine? The safety issues, which are real, could allow someone to plow into minivan on its way to Little League practice. It could explode. It could cause a massive fire. It could go way faster than the speed limit, bypass the limits of the breaks, and go against any number of laws.

So... does this mean I could sue Ford if someone modified a Ford car with a nitrous oxide booster? Could Ford sue the modifier for ruining the reputation of Ford when they crashed a modified Ford car? Will the state sue Ford for allowing such modifications, commonly used in street races? Can there be a civil suit against ford for anyone harmed by such modification?

To me, all those questions has a clear answer, and that answer is No. It also has a historical proof, as there hasn't been any lawsuits against Ford for failing to prevent such modifications. If the owner of a car modify their own car, then that person is fully responsible of any consequences of that action.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#59

Post by richardwhiuk »

Svenskunganka wrote: post #44
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.

No. The First Amendment limits what the government can do to restrict your right to free speech. The DMCA, and Section 1201, is the Government limiting the power of freedom of speech, and so the First Amendment is applicable.

By signing a EULA, you are accepting a limitation of your freedom of speech and (along with other factors - e.g. money) gaining some compromise instead (a car). That's not First Amendment territory in the same way that moderation of an online forum isn't.

The First Amendment prevents laws being made, not contracts being signed. It means it's not illegal, not that it isn't a breach of contract.

(IANAL - Obligatory XKCD https://xkcd.com/1357/)

Post reply on HN