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

Coder's Rights Project – Reverse Engineering FAQ

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: Coder's Rights Project – Reverse Engineering FAQ

#11

Post by drdaeman »

lstor wrote: post #2

In Norway, we have an un-waverable right by law to reverse engineer computer systems for learning purposes. They are described in Åndsverkloven §§ 39h and 39i. Roughly translated excerpts: § 39h Whoever has the right to use a computer program, can copy, change and work on the program to the extent necessary in order to utilize the program in accordance with its purpose, including in order to correct errors in the pro…

> for learning purposes

> A few limitations on utilization of the information

I don't know how it is in Norway, but I see those clauses as problematic.

There is not much point in reverse engineering a piece of software if you can't use the results freely, including implementation of directly "competing" software.

That is, most of RE is just figuring out the data formats and protocols. And I fear that in too many jurisdictions one who had analyzed those can't also be the person who can legally write an alternate implementation, and a "clean-room engineering" is required.

Re: Coder's Rights Project – Reverse Engineering FAQ

#12

Post by rertrree »

lstor wrote: post #2

In Norway, we have an un-waverable right by law to reverse engineer computer systems for learning purposes. They are described in Åndsverkloven §§ 39h and 39i. Roughly translated excerpts: § 39h Whoever has the right to use a computer program, can copy, change and work on the program to the extent necessary in order to utilize the program in accordance with its purpose, including in order to correct errors in the pro…

This reads like disassembly of programs is legal. What about publishing that information?

Re: Coder's Rights Project – Reverse Engineering FAQ

#13

Post by ck2 »

Has EFF ever addressed if we have the right to root our phones?

Because smartphones are getting more and more locked down, they have reached the point in late 2014 where many models simply cannot be rooted by 3rd parties.

Note I am not talking about carrier unlocking, I mean root.

I want full control over any device I use.

It is like buying a car but not being allowed into the trunk.

Re: Coder's Rights Project – Reverse Engineering FAQ

#15

Post by shmerl »

ck2 wrote: post #13

Has EFF ever addressed if we have the right to root our phones? Because smartphones are getting more and more locked down, they have reached the point in late 2014 where many models simply cannot be rooted by 3rd parties. Note I am not talking about carrier unlocking, I mean root. I want full control over any device I use. It is like buying a car but not being allowed into the trunk.

It would depend on what exactly prevents you from getting root rights on your device.

If it's DRM, to address that you'll need to fix DMCA-1201. Or more precisely, allow breaking DRM for any non infringing purpose. Right now it forbids it, and instead provides idiotic method of Librarian of Congress deciding what exceptions to grant.

This corrupted law was passed undemocratically using backdoor method of WTO trade agreements.

Re: Coder's Rights Project – Reverse Engineering FAQ

#16

Post by shmerl »

There is a major discussion now about GOG changing their TOS trying to prohibit reverse engineering and as well introducing DRM-like password restriction in their installer packages.

See here:

* https://www.gog.com/forum/general/please_fix_your_user_agree...

* https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/to_retain_your_drm_free_st...

* https://www.gog.com/forum/general/on_gnulinux_has_anyone_be_...

* https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/dont_slip_into_drm_swamp_s...

Re: Coder's Rights Project – Reverse Engineering FAQ

#17

Post by dragonwriter »

shmerl wrote: post #15
ck2 wrote: post #13

Has EFF ever addressed if we have the right to root our phones? Because smartphones are getting more and more locked down, they have reached the point in late 2014 where many models simply cannot be rooted by 3rd parties. Note I am not talking about carrier unlocking, I mean root. I want full control over any device I use. It is like buying a car but not being allowed into the trunk.

It would depend on what exactly prevents you from getting root rights on your device. If it's DRM, to address that you'll need to fix DMCA-1201. Or more precisely, allow breaking DRM for any non infringing purpose. Right now it forbids it, and instead provides idiotic method of Librarian of Congress deciding what exceptions to grant. This corrupted law was passed undemocratically using backdoor method of WTO trade ag…

> This corrupted law was passed undemocratically using backdoor method of WTO trade agreements.

No, while the anticircumvention prevention is in a Title of the DMCA named for WIPO treaties that (among other treaties) were implemented in US law in other provisions of the title, the anticircumvention provision was not part of those treaties and, in any case, neither it nor any part of the DMCA was "passed" through trade agreements, the DMCA was passed through the normal legislative process.

Re: Coder's Rights Project – Reverse Engineering FAQ

#18

Post by shmerl »

dragonwriter wrote: post #17
shmerl wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would depend on what exactly prevents you from getting root rights on your device. If it's DRM, to address that you'll need to fix DMCA-1201. Or more precisely, allow breaking DRM for any non infringing purpose. Right now it forbids it, and instead provides idiotic method of Librarian of Congress deciding what exceptions to grant. This corrupted law was passed undemocratically using backdoor method of WTO trade ag…

> This corrupted law was passed undemocratically using backdoor method of WTO trade agreements. No, while the anticircumvention prevention is in a Title of the DMCA named for WIPO treaties that (among other treaties) were implemented in US law in other provisions of the title, the anticircumvention provision was not part of those treaties and, in any case, neither it nor any part of the DMCA was "passed" through trad…

> the DMCA was passed through the normal legislative process.

Wrong. First of all those treaties took place before DMCA (including 1201) was passed. And there was nothing normal about it. Normal process actually rejected such idiotic restriction outright (since DRM proponents first attempted to pass it normally).

When they were kicked by normal democratic process, they turned to WIPO treaties which have no democratic oversight. Corruption there is much easier, so they squeezed anticircumvention provisions into such treaties affecting US. Then they turned back to the Congress and said: "you can't ignore your international obligations! Pass this law". And Congress passed it without much of opposition. That's not called a normal democratic process, it's called corruption and backdoor dealing.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty

Re: Coder's Rights Project – Reverse Engineering FAQ

#19

Post by shmerl »

dragonwriter wrote: post #17
shmerl wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would depend on what exactly prevents you from getting root rights on your device. If it's DRM, to address that you'll need to fix DMCA-1201. Or more precisely, allow breaking DRM for any non infringing purpose. Right now it forbids it, and instead provides idiotic method of Librarian of Congress deciding what exceptions to grant. This corrupted law was passed undemocratically using backdoor method of WTO trade ag…

> This corrupted law was passed undemocratically using backdoor method of WTO trade agreements. No, while the anticircumvention prevention is in a Title of the DMCA named for WIPO treaties that (among other treaties) were implemented in US law in other provisions of the title, the anticircumvention provision was not part of those treaties and, in any case, neither it nor any part of the DMCA was "passed" through trad…

Here is a more elaborate source for you: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/ustr-secret-copyright-...

> At the conference, Lehman [known as the architect of DMCA] admitted the law was the product of a deliberate end-run around the democratic process. Lehman was an advocate for several hardline proposals to criminalize digitial rights management (DRM) circumvention. Unable to sell the proposals domestically, Lehman pressed the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to propose them at the UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) instead. Many have accused Lehman of using the treaty process to avoid Congress. What was Lehman’s response to those accusations at the event? “I would say that they're right.”

Nothing more to add there, it's straight from the creator of DMCA. Corrupted law in practice.

Re: Coder's Rights Project – Reverse Engineering FAQ

#20

Post by dragonwriter »

shmerl wrote: post #18
dragonwriter wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This corrupted law was passed undemocratically using backdoor method of WTO trade agreements. No, while the anticircumvention prevention is in a Title of the DMCA named for WIPO treaties that (among other treaties) were implemented in US law in other provisions of the title, the anticircumvention provision was not part of those treaties and, in any case, neither it nor any part of the DMCA was "passed" through trad…

> the DMCA was passed through the normal legislative process. Wrong. First of all those treaties took place before DMCA (including 1201) was passed. And there was nothing normal about it. Normal process actually rejected such idiotic restriction outright (since DRM proponents first attempted to pass it normally). When they were kicked by normal democratic process, they turned to WIPO treaties which have no democratic…

> First of all those treaties took place before DMCA-1201 was passed.

But they aren't self-executing, and, in any case, DMCA 1201 isn't -- despite being in part of the DMCA titled for various treaties that were implemented in that Title -- part of them in any case. DMCA (the whole thing, including 1201) was passed as normal legislation by the House and Senate and with the signature of the President. You can argue that that is undemocratic.

> When they were kicked by normal democratic process, they turned to WIPO treaties which have no democratic oversight.

Since any treaty, to be law in the US, requires ratification by the Senate, it is simply false to state that they have "no democratic oversight". But its irrelevant in this case, since DMCA 1201 is a provision of statute law adopted through the regular legislative process, not something that is binding law as a result of at treaty without implementing legislation adopted through the regular legislative process.

> Then they turned back to the Congress and said: "you can't ignore your international obligations! Pass this law".

A tactic which is not actually effective when Congress wants to ignore the "international obligation" at issue. At most, one could argue -- if the anticircumvention provisions were actually contained in any of the treaties that were being implemented in the DMCA, which they weren't -- that the treaties provided political cover for something Congress wanted to do.

> That's not called a normal democratic process, it's called corruption and backdoor dealing.

To the extent there was corruption or backdoor dealing involved, it wasn't WTO or WIPO treaties "passing" the provision. You can argue that the regular legislative process was subject to corruption or backdoor dealing -- such is not at all unheard of in US legislative processes -- but any treaty process is a sideshow to that in this case, since the provision didn't become US law by being included in a treaty, it became US law by being included in a regular bill passed through Congress and signed by the President.

Post reply on HN