19 ms·

Why I’m Suing the US Government

1855 points by ivank 10y ago

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
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?
- mljoe 10y ago
  It shouldn't make a difference. I don't think there is a statue of limitations in challenging a law and sometimes it takes some time to understand the implications of a law anyway.
- csydas 10y ago
  I may be reading the actual complaint incorrectly, but I believe it's because in the 2015 update, the Library of Congress failed to adequately address previously protected exceptions of the DCMA: >"The Library of Congress failed in its October 28, 2015, rulemaking to grantexemptions from the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1), for speechusing clips of motion pictures, for the shifting of lawfully-acquired media to different formatsand devices, and for certain forms of security research.SeeLibrary of Congress, “Exemption toProhibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access ControlTechnologies,” 80 FR 65944 (Oct. 28, 2015) (“Final Rule”). The Librarian’s failure to grantthese exemptions violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”),5 U.S.C. § 702.Case 1:16-cv-01492" As is such, the EFF needed time to compile a case, file it, and also find plantiffs. [1] https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint
- fweespeech 10y ago
  > 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-section-1201-research-and-technology-restrictions-violate 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, 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. > EFF is also representing plaintiff Matthew Green, a computer security researcher at Johns Hopkins University who wants to make sure that we all can trust the devices that we count on to communicate, underpin our financial transactions, and secure our most private medical information. Despite this work being vital for all of our safety, Green had to seek an exemption from the Library of Congress last year for his security research. They have two people with reasonable reasons for wanting the regulation changed and are affected by it now would be my guess. Oh, and these people need the EFF to cover the legal costs.
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    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 implications of what he wants are as stated. He's trying to justify "remixing" for profit without compensation to the original rights holders. That's hot garbage in my personal opinion as a content creator.
    - ethbro 10y ago
      > 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.
      - 6stringmerc 10y ago
        ...and it happens day in and day out, and until I see drastic legal cases of enforcement going out and ruining companies and individual people and families I don't believe that the threat is particularly concerning. It exists, okay, and cleaning up 1201 would be great, but we're talking more about First Sale here in principle.
        ethbro 10y ago
        The ability to chill new development through ambiguously enforced law is just as important as the prohibitions actually in law.
        6stringmerc 10y ago
        Define new development - the security researcher has extremely valid standing, but "editing and chopping video" isn't new development in the phrasing this case presents.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
paublyrne 10y ago
How did this get to the top of Hacker News without a single comment?
- quantumhobbit 10y ago
  Some people just, you know, read the article.
- oneloop 10y ago
  Maybe because people here care about this subject. Wild idea, I know.
- turbohz 10y ago
  (silent nod)
amelius 10y ago
I wonder how much he budgeted for this series of lawsuits.
- invernomut0 10y ago
  I think he could be supported by EFF since they have released a press release.
markokrajnc 10y ago
"Our children deserve better." If you take children - they indeed mix and remix without worrying about any (copy)rights...
- nileshtrivedi 10y ago
  They need tools for remixing though, don't they? Who will make the tools if it's illegal?
- madez 10y ago
  Practically all of mankinds knowledge is a result of freely mix and match creation and ideas of others, be it in the domain of language, arts, science or technology. Copyright has gone out of control. Luckily not yet the whole planet bows to USA's demands. Let's hope that that will never be the case.
  - josho 10y ago
    Unfortunately the TPP is enshrining the US copyright approach in other countries.
DanBlake 10y ago
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.
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  "Just" pass a law that makes these EULA's null and void.
- zekevermillion 10y ago
  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 emissions, like what happened with VW). Still thought it was pretty cool that the truck was not locked down to prevent tinkering in this manner. NOTE: I am talking about what the company's perspective may be, not my own view of the risks.
  - jliptzin 10y ago
    Someone determined enough to rework autopilot to work everywhere is not going to be stopped by the terms of a EULA.
    - ZoF 10y ago
      Had the same thought, that would be quite the feat.
      - themartorana 10y ago
        But that logic is kept far away from legal decision making.
benmarks 10y ago
Great to see the EFF on board: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca-section-1201-research-and-technology-restrictions-violate https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca-se...
6stringmerc 10y ago
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 case is going nowhere because the person filing really doesn't quite understand the mechanics of basic Copyright. Just kind of throwing out the concept of "remixes" does a dis-service for the real nuances of how the rights/permissions/compensation system works, has been tested in court, etc. The subject of ownership and repair is extremely complex and this lawsuit is frivolous when the matter is being actively tested by John Deere and various farmers. Maybe this person could assist in funding that challenge to 1201. There are some glaring flaws in this whole approach, from what I understand about Copyright law and the DMCA. Also, I don't know why the EFF continues to push erroneous information regarding how Copyright, the DMCA, and Fair Use actually work: >This ban applies even where people want to make noninfringing fair uses of the materials they are accessing. Fair Use always trumps the DMCA; the nature of Fair Use, however, is subject to four factor tests, if an IP owner should feel compelled to assert the Fair Use was not in the spirit and letter of the law. Sometimes it seems like the EFF and TechDirt try to claim things that aren't true just to make a point. It's something that bothers me routinely in this subject in particular.
- ivank 10y ago
  > Fair Use always trumps the DMCA This is not necessarily the case. > However, in a number of cases involving DVD decryption courts have held that there is no fair use defense in circumvention cases. In Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), the court stated that "[i]f Congress had meant the fair use defense to apply to such actions, it would have said so."[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#Fair_Use_and_Circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#Fair_Use_an...
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    Okay, that's a reasonable point. I recall that issue too, but forgot they used the DMCA as the lock-up point, re: copyright. I think the scope is extremely limited in that case though, which is an excellent point of contention (because I don't agree with DMCA > Fair Use in principle).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ryanswapp 10y ago
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 company used to protect their copyrighted works. The purpose of the statute isn't to destroy <insert Internet activist claimed right> but is to make it much less expensive for a company to protect its products. I don't see anything wrong with that.
- trishume 10y ago
  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?
- emodendroket 10y ago
  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.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- marcelluspye 10y ago
  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.
thinkMOAR 10y ago
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.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  Suing the government to stop enforcement of some law is a pretty well established procedure at this point.
  - thinkMOAR 10y ago
    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
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      Which people are you talking about? This is done pretty regularly but generally judicial review tends to favor conservative interests.
      - thinkMOAR 10y ago
        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?)
        noonespecial 10y ago
        How about Roe v. Wade? "Roe (P), a pregnant single woman, brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother."
rayiner 10y ago
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.
- joezydeco 10y ago
  I don't think Bunnie is looking to develop products that redistribute video. If you've seen his previous NeTV project[1] he's looking to inject video overlays into the HDCP stream and let you do things like he described in his letter. His method of getting into the HDCP stream[2] via a MITM attack is probably what's running afoul of the government. [1] https://www.adafruit.com/products/609 https://www.adafruit.com/products/609 [2] http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=2117 http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=2117
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    ...and if he wants to offer that product he can license the stream and not hijack another company's product, right? If not, why not? Details please.
    - slight 10y ago
      It's not hijacking this stream, it's allowing the legitimate user of the stream to modify it with an overlay while viewing it, at home for example.
filoeleven 10y ago
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.
hlandau 10y ago
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 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.
- cornchips 10y ago
  Got me thinking: As an argument, 1201 is an ecological threat and single point of failure. Most copyright media is a petroleum byproduct...
- comex 10y ago
  I'm not a lawyer either, but I doubt that clause has much effect, if any. The DMCA defines "effective technological measure" as follows: > [A] technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. This seems like an objective metric, not something the copyright holder can arbitrarily "deem". However, in the usual case people worry about, where a user is "circumventing" by modifying software on their own device, one could argue that given the "Installation Information" clauses and the other parts of the GPLv3 aimed at ensuring the user has the ability to modify the software, it does not "in the ordinary course of its operation" require permission from the copyright holder. The "no covered work shall be deemed" clause could be seen to clarify intent. There are other cases, like if the GPL software was, say, a web server that someone had configured to password protect files they had copyright over, and a hacker bypassed the password protection. This would normally be covered by the CFAA and other hacking statutes, but the DMCA could apply too. In this case, the GPL's "waive any legal power to forbid circumvention" clause wouldn't apply because the hacking wouldn't be "effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work". But if the "no covered work shall be deemed" clause is effective, it would close off using 1201 against the hacker anyway...
olympus 10y ago
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.
- athenot 10y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States
- knieveltech 10y ago
  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.
known 10y ago
I'll support;
shmerl 10y ago
Great. DMCA-1201 was always unconstitutional and was in practice used to stifle free speech. Good to see EFF actually bringing it to legal fight. It should be repealed completely.
BenedictS 10y ago
I've made an account just to wish you good luck! You're a great man for doing this and I'm glad EFF is on board.
DoubleGlazing 10y ago
Good. My wife is a speech therapist and uses a system that is designed to help people who have had strokes regain their voice. It comprises a piece of software that comes with a "specially calibrated USB microphone". The microphone is actually a Samson laptop USB mic that had the voice improvement systems logo stuck on it. The system came with lots of legal warnings about not copying, not telling unqualified people about how it worked and not to use an unapproved microphone. The DMCA was specifically mentioned. One day the mic failed (the program requires patients to shout aggressively at the mic) so my wife went off looking for a replacement. We had a few USB mics that we tried and and the application refused to acknowledge their existence even though they showed up in Windows. It became obvious that the software was checking the USB device ID. My wife went to the company that ran the system to get a replacement, but they said she had to buy a new copy of the software as well - total cost $659. So we took a chance and ordered a new Samson USB mic from Amazon for €30.00, but when it arrived it didn't work. It was the same model, but was a few generations ahead and therefore had a different USB device ID. My wife has some colleagues with the same package so I tested their mics and they had different USB device IDs and it became obvious that when Samson released a revision of the mic the company offering the system simply recompiled the code with he new device ID baked in and then re-branded the mic. So, not wanting to shell out $659 for a whole new package I took the old and new mics apart desoldered the cartridges from both mics and put the new one in the body of the failed mic. It worked! Now technically this would be a violation of 1201 in the sense that the individual copy of the software they sold you was tied to the specific mic they sold you at the same time - they said so in the EULA. But lets be honest that's just nonsense. They were simply trying to sell more stuff - a tactic that seems fairly common in various fields of professional therapy. This is the sort of problem caused by 1201. If we lived in the US we would have been in breach of the DMCA even though we copied nothing. Also, the software is as ugly as sin.
- ProAm 10y ago
  How much does your wife charge as a therapist? Everyone needs to make money. HN is a weird place to bemoan prices when many here are seeking unicorn valuations while disrupting industry. Everyone hates laws until its in their best interest to have said laws.
mrmondo 10y ago
I fully support your cause. I'm not an American and do not live in America but the problems with American (copyright) laws unfortunately affect the world on a global scale. I sincerely wish you all the best in your efforts and hope that other organisations as well as the (fantastic) EFF back you. I stand behind you.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  If only my precious American vote had any power over this whatsoever. (My foreign colleagues seem to think it does.)
onetwotree 10y ago
Good luck! What's kind of cool about this issue is that it attracts support from citizens of all political stripes - whether you're a farmer who just wants to be able to fix his own damn tractor, or a hacker who wants to futz with proprietary hardware, the law is patently bogus. Unfortunately, farmers and hackers have far less political influence than corporations. Hopefully by pursuing this through the courts and with adequate resources from the EFF some progress can be made that couldn't be in congress.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  Exactly re: influence. Laws like this are de-facto evidence of the power of the will of the people vs. the power of the will of financial interests by other people who deem that more important (in terms of their bank accounts and short-sighted profit motives).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- kahrkunne 10y ago
  Really, if you're a farmer who wants to fix his own damn tractor, you're probably a hacker (in the traditional sense of the word). You don't have to work with computers in order to be a hacker.
- briandear 10y ago
  Just as a point of fact, farmers have huge political power. Look at farm subsidies, look at Ethanol mandates. To be more accurate, I would say the number of farmers that want to work with code/electronics to fix tractors is a small subset of "farmers." Try cutting a farming subsidy and you'll quickly see how powerful farmers really are. Ted Cruz was the only candidate who dared challenge Ethanol mandates -- while campaigning in Iowa. Most political pundits considered that suicide. He won Iowa despite that, but it does show that farmers actually have disproportional power in national politics. However, the "hack my tractor" crowd is not necessarily exercising that power. Perhaps in the 2020 election, this will become a marquee issue (as ethanol has been in elections past.)
dang 10y ago
A related article by Matthew Green is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12137437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12137437, and by the EFF at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12136682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12136682.
maerF0x0 10y ago
IME many US people do not resonate with the creativity arguments, but do with the freedoms. The land of the free lately doesnt feel like it and I think many US people are feeling it too. It may help to phrase your arguments in the wording that the constitution is meant to protect -- in terms of freedom.
spacemanmatt 10y ago
The whole DMCA is a steaming pile, but I guess I'm ok with piecewise dismantling.
tomc1985 10y ago
Doesn't the US dismiss most lawsuits filed against it out-of-hand? Wasn't that why that class-action on behalf of the Japanese concentration camp survivors was such a landmark case?
dikaiosune 10y ago
If you're in this thread to support this EFF-backed action, I would strongly consider donating to a cause you support: https://supporters.eff.org/donate/ https://supporters.eff.org/donate/
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  Also be sure to click their Amazon affiliate link before buying stuff, it's an easy way to give for free.
  - dikaiosune 10y ago
    You can also set them as your designated recipient for Amazon Smile and use a browser extension to put all applicable purchases through that program: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smile-always/jgpmhnmjbhgkhpbgelalfpplebgfjmbf?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smile-always/jgpmh... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/amazonsmileredirector/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/amazonsmilere...
- ruler88 10y ago
  What's the EFF stance on this particular lawsuit?
  - dikaiosune 10y ago
    As linked at the end of the blog post: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca-section-1201-research-and-technology-restrictions-violate https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca-se...
blastrat 10y ago
yes I agree, and also, what? why should PP's question be downvoted-to-hell?: He's entitled to defend the other side here. Not saying you did it, but I had to comment someplace.
- dimal 10y ago
  > HN is a weird place to bemoan prices when many here are seeking unicorn valuations while disrupting industry. I think the insulting tone towards those that disagree with him might have something to do with it. And the above statement is just plain absurd.
  - ProAm 10y ago
    I did not intend for it to be insulting. I often see posters complain about laws that prevent them from shoehorning them into and industry start making money, and defending similar laws when it's in their best interests. My original comment was a merely to argue the other side of the argument because HN has a tendency to be two-faced when it comes to topics like this.
    - blastrat 10y ago
      you were downvoted because HN is not the friendly place it pretends to be: they don't like what you said. You only get to sneer at people if you drink the KoolAid. They hide behind the "it was the way you said it" excuse when they don't share your POV. I don't share your POV btw, but I got downvoted because they don't like that I defended your right speak because your POV is unacceptable here. And this, to move the topic further afield, is why codes of conduct don't work: it's just another flavor of Turkish Pres Recep Erdoğanian "thin skin to disagreement", or "I don't like your opinion in one area, so you'd better shut up about everything else"
  - blastrat 10y ago
    his "above statement" is not at all absurd, it reflects the thinking of somebody who is drawing a parallel because they are clearly educated in the Nobel prize attracting (i.e. hardly obscure) field of microeconomics; if you can't see that, am I right in guessing you have not studied micro? Cuz if you did, you missed a chunk of it. | HN is a weird place to bemoan prices when many here are seeking unicorn valuations while disrupting industry HN is a place where many seek unicorn valuations which are only achievable from monopoly rents. Monopoly rents are what the headphone USB trick is attempting to collect (see bundling). That's what makes it pertinent to state "weird place to take this side" especially so vociferously... well, weird side to take unless you are not educated about econ and are unable to decode what's actually happening. If the software producer did not try to enforce copy protection through the USB scheme, they would presumably face the problem of people copying the software and buying aftermarket headphones. In a large scale industry like operating systems (Microsoft Windows) such rent seeking behavior is to be deplored because prices of individual copies of the software should approach their very-inexpensive marginal cost. But the marginal cost of a niche piece of software such as this ADA software is complicated by the difficulty in earning back the development costs. This is the justification for patents, etc. whether you believe in it strongly or less strongly or not. I am less strongly a believer, but I'm not a pussy who downvotes people who disagree with me.
magice 10y ago
I do appreciate the effort to protect everyone's constitutional right. I wish best of luck to the pursuit. However, I feel like there is something very very wrong about method and intention of this type of actions/complains. One thing always bugs me about Americans: despite the liberties that they enjoy, despite the very real capacity to impact change in their government and laws, they all hate "the Government." Who is "the Government"? Wait, ain't them the very candidates that you the people vote into offices? Like this idea of "suing the US government." Who are you suing? The executive branch? Why are you suing them? This is over a law. It's a piece of legislation. The executive branch merely, you know, execute the laws. Why not sue Congress? Oh wait, why sue Congress when you can simply vote them out of office? Oh wait, why "stop enforcing" the laws when you can, you know, CHANGE the laws? This kinda reminds me of the libertarians' ideas of obstruction of legislation so that "the government does not spend more." If not spending is the right thing to do, why not educate people that. Even if one believes that 47% of the population is "takers," 53% is still a majority. So teach, advocate, change minds. But no, they prefer to obstruct their country, risk the centuries of their national reputation, put t heir fellow citizens to starvation. You know, if this happens in schoolyards, we probably call it "bullying." But if a bunch of libertarians do it, it's "principles." Obviously, I agree with the plaintiff here. However, the method is still wrong. And different from above, there are very few "takers" here. Mostly, it's faceless businesses that (let's be frank here) few people like. So why not take the high road? Why not educate your fellow citizens on the danger of the laws? Why not change minds? Why not raise money for candidates who will change the laws appropriately? In short: why not be a citizen rather than a rebel? Why not change the system for the better rather than obstruct it? Why not make your society/country a better place rather than simply fight it?
- shkkmo 10y ago
  > You know, if this happens in schoolyards, we probably call it "bullying." But if a bunch of libertarians do it, it's "principles." When a bunch of civil rights activists do it, is it still "bullying"? Similar lawsuits are why Texas and other US states can't enforce their anti-homosexual sodomy laws anymore.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  The organizations who benefit from these laws have significantly more lobbying power and popular influence than anyone else can hope to gain. Ostensibly one reason courts exist is to allow harms to smaller players to be addressed. I could make a bulleted list of why a republic doesn't work very well to tame media oligarchs, but it boils down to control of the media and decades of experience with framing the public conversation.
hackaflocka 10y ago
DJ Drama, the mixtape guy, was raided under the same law. It's an interesting story, google "dj drama raid"
chejazi 10y ago
This reminds me of a new patent Apple filed to disable video recording on iphones. Would winning this suit prevent that from being enforceable?
unabst 10y ago
What we need is the legal right to fork any IP. An open licensing model where no one needs permission. They just need to maybe pay an IP tax that trickles up to the previous contributors that helped produce what was forked. IP is completely flawed because it grants a monopoly on the fruits of specific knowledge or a work as if they are static end products, whereas in reality anything that is not evolving is dying. So the law restricts progress to the owners of the IP even when we could all contribute. And when there is incompetence or negligence by the owners, we have a situation where something good is ruined or withheld, with anyone fixing it being illegal. Removing IP is impossible because it's about profit, which is also a right. What we need is a new revenue system based on new principles of an expectation of progress and open contribution. Open source software and hardware is this, but just without any standard profit model backed by law.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  who pays this tax? the person that forks the github repo?
  - unabst 10y ago
    This is just one scenario, but you can imagine a system where the person who profits over any IP would pay IP tax, which would then get distributed upstream to previous registered contributors. IP producers would need to be tracked, but this is something that systems such as github already do extremely well, and credit card companies already run systems that process fees for every single transaction. Producers will announce themselves anyway, in hopes that their content will generate as much value as possible. Contributors would announce themselves in exchange for the right to use any IP. So say DJ Foo remixes a Michael Jackson song and uploads it to YouTube. YouTube will withhold the IP tax from the ad revenue paid out, and hand it over to the IP revenue service with the copyright profile. Michael Jackson will get paid for DJ Foo's remix automatically. Say DJ Foo does an original song and uploads it to YouTube. The same thing will happen, but DJ Foo will get paid from the IP revenue service since the IP is tied to DJ Foo as the originator. And imagine if all this information was open and public. We could lookup any product or work and see all of its activity and history as if it were open source code on github. In exchange for everyone paying an IP tax, anyone creating anything or adding something will be guaranteed to get paid for their contributions based on the maximum value society can generate from it. Violators will be shamed just by manipulating the system because they'd be doing it in public, and it would be in the IP creators best interest to police their work and report violations. Violations don't even need to be criminal. They just need to be fines that disincentivise those actions enough, much like parking tickets. An example violation would be uploading someone else's song without changing it or false claims regarding ownership.
SilasX 10y ago
Can someone do a tl;dr? This is upvoted very highly but it's assuming a ton of context I don't have. All I get is that someone wants to be able to tinker, but today that necessitates breaking some legally-enforced protections on the product. That's a valid point but I don't see how it's gotten to 1000 points, so I think I'm missing something. What's the lawsuit? What's the egregious use case?
- LukeShu 10y ago
  DRM. I assume you know of it, and that it's massively hated. It's "copy protection" software mechanisms that is meant to control how you use and copy media that you have. It's a pain. Nominally, it's there to prevent you from copying the media in illegal ways, but it often also prevents you from doing perfectly legal things with it. However, it's not just a pain to be worked around. In the US, since the DMCA section 1201 became effective in 1998, it is illegal to try to work around DRM. Mostly. Every couple of years, the Library of Congress gets to make a list of exceptions to 1201, of specific situations where you can work around DRM without it being illegal. Most recently was October 28, 2015. Many people still objected to section 1201 on principal that it prevents tinkering, but the Library of Congress' list of exceptions has generally kept people placated. As for context of their specific case: I'm not totally sure. User csydas suggested that this case became possible because of certain exceptions being removed from the latest version of the list (then some time for the EFF to compile the case). This seams reasonable to me, but to know for sure would involve legal details about the case that we don't have yet.
  - SilasX 10y ago
    I'm familiar with DRM and the related DMCA criticism. I just don't get what's so special about this case. It's like when you see a really boring scene in a movie and everyone is laughing at references and subtext you're not getting, or on the edge in suspense. Like, if the scene is some dinner party, but right before you started watching someone had set a bomb under the table or something. What's the bomb here?
    - 10y ago
wonkyp2 10y ago
I cackled at the former, homeless vegan (or thereabouts) who started a shitstorm in the comments.
wonkyp2 10y ago
I cackled at the former, homeless vegan (or thereabouts) who started a shitstorm in the comments.
lifeisstillgood 10y ago
The UK government is trying to push for OSS as the default for all government software. As a default for all "societally beneficial"'software is a better goal and one highlighted here. Now my attempts so far are stymied by this weird half world. Most government contracts basically want either bums on seats contractors or to fundamentally hire "someone who has done it before" (effectively the same as wanting to buy off the shelf) So there is almost no way to seed fund the initial OSS development. Down thread people talk about a fund for starting OSS projects to provide things like this. Plover is an example of people trying it on their own - but a funded system that basically follows current gov work seems better.
ethanpil 10y ago
If something isn't done about this very soon, people will never remember or know what used to be. Most (many?) of us here have used VCRs, tape recorders and CD burners, etc, and understand what he is talking about when we remember the days when we had freedom to own information. Today's kids have been well trained by Apple, Google and Netflix and hardly even understand what we are talking about. "Oh, you don't have an iPhone anymore? Just buy it on Google Play and you will have it again on your Galaxy." is a quote I have heard more than once...
LELISOSKA 10y ago
This entire cause is a sham, beyond belief, a cause that seeks to degrade the value of creative thought and intellectual property. Before we get into socioeconomic barrier discussions I am a former disabled homeless person who is how the founder of one of the most powerful environmental activism groups in the country. I started out with nothing and worked myself to where I am, using original and creative thought and at no time have I ever needed anyone’s intellectual property to build myself to where I am. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, that supports this complete bullshit erosion of the rights of content creators everywhere, does nothing in this world but fight for causes that continually reduce the market value of original ideas. They claim to fight for things like “free speech” but what they really fight for is the rights of anonymous hate groups to steal your photos and write nasty messages on them. They fight for the rights of the meek to inherit the Earth so they can then destroy it with their abject failures. Look to the recent lawsuit Google v Oracle, where Oracle sued Google over the use of their software in Android. Google avoided billions in liability and it was all thanks to the work of the EFF, who suck off the teat of Silicon Valley and protect their billionaire buddies from financial liability, and then they support “little guys” like this so they can continue their 1% supporting ruse. I look forward to watching this mad grab at free intellectual property get slapped down by Washington DC. This is not about fighting the government, this guy is a puppet being used by the power that be in Silicon Valley in order to allow companies like Google to continue to rob, loot, and pillage other people’s intellectual property without financial liability.
LELISOSKA 10y ago
This entire cause is a sham, beyond belief, a cause that seeks to degrade the value of creative thought and intellectual property. Before we get into socioeconomic barrier discussions I am a former disabled homeless person who is how the founder of one of the most powerful environmental activism groups in the country. I started out with nothing and worked myself to where I am, using original and creative thought and at no time have I ever needed anyone’s intellectual property to build myself to where I am. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, that supports this complete bullshit erosion of the rights of content creators everywhere, does nothing in this world but fight for causes that continually reduce the market value of original ideas. They claim to fight for things like “free speech” but what they really fight for is the rights of anonymous hate groups to steal your photos and write nasty messages on them. They fight for the rights of the meek to inherit the Earth so they can then destroy it with their abject failures. Look to the recent lawsuit Google v Oracle, where Oracle sued Google over the use of their software in Android. Google avoided billions in liability and it was all thanks to the work of the EFF, who suck off the teat of Silicon Valley and protect their billionaire buddies from financial liability, and then they support “little guys” like this so they can continue their 1% supporting ruse. I look forward to watching this mad grab at free intellectual property get slapped down by Washington DC. This is not about fighting the government, this guy is a puppet being used by the power that be in Silicon Valley in order to allow companies like Google to continue to rob, loot, and pillage other people’s intellectual property without financial liability.
ankurdhama 10y ago
The problem is this new business model where they don't just sell you things/stuff, rather they also sell you "specific rights" along with the stuff. The usual things like you cannot do this or that with the stuff that you bought from us. The sole purpose is to keep earning money even after the one time deal of buying the stuff.
reddytowns 10y ago
You know, no one asked you tech people from getting involved in law making. Nowadays, a law maker can't seem to do anything at all without some techie crying foul. Their argument always is some nonsensical technobabble, which the courts can't really understand anyway, often giving in to their demands just to get them to go away. And it's such a shame, too, since those laws were bought and paid for by lobbyists, and what does it say about the rest of the country if one can't expect to get what one pays for when lobbying at the highest level of government?
Daphnenost 10y ago
Good. My wife is a speech therapist and uses a system that is designed to help people who have had strokes regain their voice. It comprises a piece of software that comes with a "specially calibrated USB microphone". The microphone is actually a Samson laptop USB mic that had the voice improvement systems logo stuck on it. The system came with lots of legal warnings about not copying, not telling unqualified people about how it worked and not to use an unapproved microphone. The DMCA was specifically mentioned. One day the mic failed (the program requires patients to shout aggressively at the mic) so my wife went off looking for a replacement. We had a few USB mics that we tried and and the application refused to acknowledge their existence even though they showed up in Windows. It became obvious that the software was checking the USB device ID. My wife went to the company that ran the system to get a replacement, but they said she had to buy a new copy of the software as well - total cost $659. So we took a chance and ordered a new Samson USB mic from Amazon for €30.00, but when it arrived it didn't work. It was the same model, but was a few generations ahead and therefore had a different USB device ID. My wife has some colleagues with the same package so I tested their mics and they had different USB device IDs and it became obvious that when Samson released a revision of the mic the company offering the system simply recompiled the code with he new device ID baked in and then re-branded the mic. So, not wanting to shell out $659 for a whole new package I took the old and new mics apart desoldered the cartridges from both mics and put the new one in the body of the failed mic. It worked! Now technically this would be a violation of 1201 in the sense that the individual copy of the software they sold you was tied to the specific mic they sold you at the same time - they said so in the EULA. But lets be honest that's just nonsense. They were simply trying to sell more stuff - a tactic that seems fairly common in various fields of professional therapy. This is the sort of problem caused by 1201. If we lived in the US we would have been in breach of the DMCA even though we copied nothing. Also, the software is as ugly as sin.
Daphnenost 10y ago
> HN is a weird place to bemoan prices when many here are seeking unicorn valuations while disrupting industry. I think the insulting tone towards those that disagree with him might have something to do with it. And the above statement is just plain absurd.
Susanelst 10y ago
I'm wondering if that's "more illegal" than fixing the hardware component (which is silly because changing the ID can be simpler). In hardware you can just say you've replaced a broken part even if it's 99% of the hardware, right?

1855 points by ivank 10y ago

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?

mljoe 10y ago
It shouldn't make a difference. I don't think there is a statue of limitations in challenging a law and sometimes it takes some time to understand the implications of a law anyway.
csydas 10y ago
I may be reading the actual complaint incorrectly, but I believe it's because in the 2015 update, the Library of Congress failed to adequately address previously protected exceptions of the DCMA: >"The Library of Congress failed in its October 28, 2015, rulemaking to grantexemptions from the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1), for speechusing clips of motion pictures, for the shifting of lawfully-acquired media to different formatsand devices, and for certain forms of security research.SeeLibrary of Congress, “Exemption toProhibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access ControlTechnologies,” 80 FR 65944 (Oct. 28, 2015) (“Final Rule”). The Librarian’s failure to grantthese exemptions violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”),5 U.S.C. § 702.Case 1:16-cv-01492" As is such, the EFF needed time to compile a case, file it, and also find plantiffs. [1] https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint
fweespeech 10y ago
> 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-section-1201-research-and-technology-restrictions-violate 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, 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. > EFF is also representing plaintiff Matthew Green, a computer security researcher at Johns Hopkins University who wants to make sure that we all can trust the devices that we count on to communicate, underpin our financial transactions, and secure our most private medical information. Despite this work being vital for all of our safety, Green had to seek an exemption from the Library of Congress last year for his security research. They have two people with reasonable reasons for wanting the regulation changed and are affected by it now would be my guess. Oh, and these people need the EFF to cover the legal costs.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  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 implications of what he wants are as stated. He's trying to justify "remixing" for profit without compensation to the original rights holders. That's hot garbage in my personal opinion as a content creator.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    > 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.
    - 6stringmerc 10y ago
      ...and it happens day in and day out, and until I see drastic legal cases of enforcement going out and ruining companies and individual people and families I don't believe that the threat is particularly concerning. It exists, okay, and cleaning up 1201 would be great, but we're talking more about First Sale here in principle.
      - ethbro 10y ago
        The ability to chill new development through ambiguously enforced law is just as important as the prohibitions actually in law.
        6stringmerc 10y ago
        Define new development - the security researcher has extremely valid standing, but "editing and chopping video" isn't new development in the phrasing this case presents.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

paublyrne 10y ago

How did this get to the top of Hacker News without a single comment?

quantumhobbit 10y ago
Some people just, you know, read the article.
oneloop 10y ago
Maybe because people here care about this subject. Wild idea, I know.
turbohz 10y ago
(silent nod)

amelius 10y ago

I wonder how much he budgeted for this series of lawsuits.

invernomut0 10y ago
I think he could be supported by EFF since they have released a press release.

markokrajnc 10y ago

"Our children deserve better." If you take children - they indeed mix and remix without worrying about any (copy)rights...

nileshtrivedi 10y ago
They need tools for remixing though, don't they? Who will make the tools if it's illegal?
madez 10y ago
Practically all of mankinds knowledge is a result of freely mix and match creation and ideas of others, be it in the domain of language, arts, science or technology. Copyright has gone out of control. Luckily not yet the whole planet bows to USA's demands. Let's hope that that will never be the case.
- josho 10y ago
  Unfortunately the TPP is enshrining the US copyright approach in other countries.

DanBlake 10y ago

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.

Kristine1975 10y ago
"Just" pass a law that makes these EULA's null and void.
zekevermillion 10y ago
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 emissions, like what happened with VW). Still thought it was pretty cool that the truck was not locked down to prevent tinkering in this manner. NOTE: I am talking about what the company's perspective may be, not my own view of the risks.
- jliptzin 10y ago
  Someone determined enough to rework autopilot to work everywhere is not going to be stopped by the terms of a EULA.
  - ZoF 10y ago
    Had the same thought, that would be quite the feat.
    - themartorana 10y ago
      But that logic is kept far away from legal decision making.

benmarks 10y ago

Great to see the EFF on board: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca-section-1201-research-and-technology-restrictions-violate https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca-se...

6stringmerc 10y ago

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 case is going nowhere because the person filing really doesn't quite understand the mechanics of basic Copyright. Just kind of throwing out the concept of "remixes" does a dis-service for the real nuances of how the rights/permissions/compensation system works, has been tested in court, etc. The subject of ownership and repair is extremely complex and this lawsuit is frivolous when the matter is being actively tested by John Deere and various farmers. Maybe this person could assist in funding that challenge to 1201. There are some glaring flaws in this whole approach, from what I understand about Copyright law and the DMCA. Also, I don't know why the EFF continues to push erroneous information regarding how Copyright, the DMCA, and Fair Use actually work: >This ban applies even where people want to make noninfringing fair uses of the materials they are accessing. Fair Use always trumps the DMCA; the nature of Fair Use, however, is subject to four factor tests, if an IP owner should feel compelled to assert the Fair Use was not in the spirit and letter of the law. Sometimes it seems like the EFF and TechDirt try to claim things that aren't true just to make a point. It's something that bothers me routinely in this subject in particular.

ivank 10y ago
> Fair Use always trumps the DMCA This is not necessarily the case. > However, in a number of cases involving DVD decryption courts have held that there is no fair use defense in circumvention cases. In Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), the court stated that "[i]f Congress had meant the fair use defense to apply to such actions, it would have said so."[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#Fair_Use_and_Circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#Fair_Use_an...
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Okay, that's a reasonable point. I recall that issue too, but forgot they used the DMCA as the lock-up point, re: copyright. I think the scope is extremely limited in that case though, which is an excellent point of contention (because I don't agree with DMCA > Fair Use in principle).

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ryanswapp 10y ago

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 company used to protect their copyrighted works. The purpose of the statute isn't to destroy <insert Internet activist claimed right> but is to make it much less expensive for a company to protect its products. I don't see anything wrong with that.

trishume 10y ago
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?
emodendroket 10y ago
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.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
marcelluspye 10y ago
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.

thinkMOAR 10y ago

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.

emodendroket 10y ago
Suing the government to stop enforcement of some law is a pretty well established procedure at this point.
- thinkMOAR 10y ago
  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
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Which people are you talking about? This is done pretty regularly but generally judicial review tends to favor conservative interests.
    - thinkMOAR 10y ago
      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?)
      - noonespecial 10y ago
        How about Roe v. Wade? "Roe (P), a pregnant single woman, brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother."

rayiner 10y ago

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.

joezydeco 10y ago
I don't think Bunnie is looking to develop products that redistribute video. If you've seen his previous NeTV project[1] he's looking to inject video overlays into the HDCP stream and let you do things like he described in his letter. His method of getting into the HDCP stream[2] via a MITM attack is probably what's running afoul of the government. [1] https://www.adafruit.com/products/609 https://www.adafruit.com/products/609 [2] http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=2117 http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=2117
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  ...and if he wants to offer that product he can license the stream and not hijack another company's product, right? If not, why not? Details please.
  - slight 10y ago
    It's not hijacking this stream, it's allowing the legitimate user of the stream to modify it with an overlay while viewing it, at home for example.

filoeleven 10y ago

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.

hlandau 10y ago

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 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.

cornchips 10y ago
Got me thinking: As an argument, 1201 is an ecological threat and single point of failure. Most copyright media is a petroleum byproduct...
comex 10y ago
I'm not a lawyer either, but I doubt that clause has much effect, if any. The DMCA defines "effective technological measure" as follows: > [A] technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. This seems like an objective metric, not something the copyright holder can arbitrarily "deem". However, in the usual case people worry about, where a user is "circumventing" by modifying software on their own device, one could argue that given the "Installation Information" clauses and the other parts of the GPLv3 aimed at ensuring the user has the ability to modify the software, it does not "in the ordinary course of its operation" require permission from the copyright holder. The "no covered work shall be deemed" clause could be seen to clarify intent. There are other cases, like if the GPL software was, say, a web server that someone had configured to password protect files they had copyright over, and a hacker bypassed the password protection. This would normally be covered by the CFAA and other hacking statutes, but the DMCA could apply too. In this case, the GPL's "waive any legal power to forbid circumvention" clause wouldn't apply because the hacking wouldn't be "effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work". But if the "no covered work shall be deemed" clause is effective, it would close off using 1201 against the hacker anyway...

olympus 10y ago

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.

athenot 10y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States
knieveltech 10y ago
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.

known 10y ago

I'll support;

shmerl 10y ago

Great. DMCA-1201 was always unconstitutional and was in practice used to stifle free speech. Good to see EFF actually bringing it to legal fight. It should be repealed completely.

BenedictS 10y ago

I've made an account just to wish you good luck! You're a great man for doing this and I'm glad EFF is on board.

DoubleGlazing 10y ago

Good. My wife is a speech therapist and uses a system that is designed to help people who have had strokes regain their voice. It comprises a piece of software that comes with a "specially calibrated USB microphone". The microphone is actually a Samson laptop USB mic that had the voice improvement systems logo stuck on it. The system came with lots of legal warnings about not copying, not telling unqualified people about how it worked and not to use an unapproved microphone. The DMCA was specifically mentioned. One day the mic failed (the program requires patients to shout aggressively at the mic) so my wife went off looking for a replacement. We had a few USB mics that we tried and and the application refused to acknowledge their existence even though they showed up in Windows. It became obvious that the software was checking the USB device ID. My wife went to the company that ran the system to get a replacement, but they said she had to buy a new copy of the software as well - total cost $659. So we took a chance and ordered a new Samson USB mic from Amazon for €30.00, but when it arrived it didn't work. It was the same model, but was a few generations ahead and therefore had a different USB device ID. My wife has some colleagues with the same package so I tested their mics and they had different USB device IDs and it became obvious that when Samson released a revision of the mic the company offering the system simply recompiled the code with he new device ID baked in and then re-branded the mic. So, not wanting to shell out $659 for a whole new package I took the old and new mics apart desoldered the cartridges from both mics and put the new one in the body of the failed mic. It worked! Now technically this would be a violation of 1201 in the sense that the individual copy of the software they sold you was tied to the specific mic they sold you at the same time - they said so in the EULA. But lets be honest that's just nonsense. They were simply trying to sell more stuff - a tactic that seems fairly common in various fields of professional therapy. This is the sort of problem caused by 1201. If we lived in the US we would have been in breach of the DMCA even though we copied nothing. Also, the software is as ugly as sin.

ProAm 10y ago
How much does your wife charge as a therapist? Everyone needs to make money. HN is a weird place to bemoan prices when many here are seeking unicorn valuations while disrupting industry. Everyone hates laws until its in their best interest to have said laws.

mrmondo 10y ago

I fully support your cause. I'm not an American and do not live in America but the problems with American (copyright) laws unfortunately affect the world on a global scale. I sincerely wish you all the best in your efforts and hope that other organisations as well as the (fantastic) EFF back you. I stand behind you.

cloudjacker 10y ago
If only my precious American vote had any power over this whatsoever. (My foreign colleagues seem to think it does.)

onetwotree 10y ago

Good luck! What's kind of cool about this issue is that it attracts support from citizens of all political stripes - whether you're a farmer who just wants to be able to fix his own damn tractor, or a hacker who wants to futz with proprietary hardware, the law is patently bogus. Unfortunately, farmers and hackers have far less political influence than corporations. Hopefully by pursuing this through the courts and with adequate resources from the EFF some progress can be made that couldn't be in congress.

seanp2k2 10y ago
Exactly re: influence. Laws like this are de-facto evidence of the power of the will of the people vs. the power of the will of financial interests by other people who deem that more important (in terms of their bank accounts and short-sighted profit motives).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kahrkunne 10y ago
Really, if you're a farmer who wants to fix his own damn tractor, you're probably a hacker (in the traditional sense of the word). You don't have to work with computers in order to be a hacker.
briandear 10y ago
Just as a point of fact, farmers have huge political power. Look at farm subsidies, look at Ethanol mandates. To be more accurate, I would say the number of farmers that want to work with code/electronics to fix tractors is a small subset of "farmers." Try cutting a farming subsidy and you'll quickly see how powerful farmers really are. Ted Cruz was the only candidate who dared challenge Ethanol mandates -- while campaigning in Iowa. Most political pundits considered that suicide. He won Iowa despite that, but it does show that farmers actually have disproportional power in national politics. However, the "hack my tractor" crowd is not necessarily exercising that power. Perhaps in the 2020 election, this will become a marquee issue (as ethanol has been in elections past.)

dang 10y ago

A related article by Matthew Green is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12137437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12137437, and by the EFF at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12136682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12136682.

maerF0x0 10y ago

IME many US people do not resonate with the creativity arguments, but do with the freedoms. The land of the free lately doesnt feel like it and I think many US people are feeling it too. It may help to phrase your arguments in the wording that the constitution is meant to protect -- in terms of freedom.

spacemanmatt 10y ago

The whole DMCA is a steaming pile, but I guess I'm ok with piecewise dismantling.

tomc1985 10y ago

Doesn't the US dismiss most lawsuits filed against it out-of-hand? Wasn't that why that class-action on behalf of the Japanese concentration camp survivors was such a landmark case?

dikaiosune 10y ago

If you're in this thread to support this EFF-backed action, I would strongly consider donating to a cause you support: https://supporters.eff.org/donate/ https://supporters.eff.org/donate/

whamlastxmas 10y ago
Also be sure to click their Amazon affiliate link before buying stuff, it's an easy way to give for free.
- dikaiosune 10y ago
  You can also set them as your designated recipient for Amazon Smile and use a browser extension to put all applicable purchases through that program: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smile-always/jgpmhnmjbhgkhpbgelalfpplebgfjmbf?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smile-always/jgpmh... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/amazonsmileredirector/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/amazonsmilere...
ruler88 10y ago
What's the EFF stance on this particular lawsuit?
- dikaiosune 10y ago
  As linked at the end of the blog post: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca-section-1201-research-and-technology-restrictions-violate https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca-se...

blastrat 10y ago

yes I agree, and also, what? why should PP's question be downvoted-to-hell?: He's entitled to defend the other side here. Not saying you did it, but I had to comment someplace.

dimal 10y ago
> HN is a weird place to bemoan prices when many here are seeking unicorn valuations while disrupting industry. I think the insulting tone towards those that disagree with him might have something to do with it. And the above statement is just plain absurd.
- ProAm 10y ago
  I did not intend for it to be insulting. I often see posters complain about laws that prevent them from shoehorning them into and industry start making money, and defending similar laws when it's in their best interests. My original comment was a merely to argue the other side of the argument because HN has a tendency to be two-faced when it comes to topics like this.
  - blastrat 10y ago
    you were downvoted because HN is not the friendly place it pretends to be: they don't like what you said. You only get to sneer at people if you drink the KoolAid. They hide behind the "it was the way you said it" excuse when they don't share your POV. I don't share your POV btw, but I got downvoted because they don't like that I defended your right speak because your POV is unacceptable here. And this, to move the topic further afield, is why codes of conduct don't work: it's just another flavor of Turkish Pres Recep Erdoğanian "thin skin to disagreement", or "I don't like your opinion in one area, so you'd better shut up about everything else"
- blastrat 10y ago
  his "above statement" is not at all absurd, it reflects the thinking of somebody who is drawing a parallel because they are clearly educated in the Nobel prize attracting (i.e. hardly obscure) field of microeconomics; if you can't see that, am I right in guessing you have not studied micro? Cuz if you did, you missed a chunk of it. | HN is a weird place to bemoan prices when many here are seeking unicorn valuations while disrupting industry HN is a place where many seek unicorn valuations which are only achievable from monopoly rents. Monopoly rents are what the headphone USB trick is attempting to collect (see bundling). That's what makes it pertinent to state "weird place to take this side" especially so vociferously... well, weird side to take unless you are not educated about econ and are unable to decode what's actually happening. If the software producer did not try to enforce copy protection through the USB scheme, they would presumably face the problem of people copying the software and buying aftermarket headphones. In a large scale industry like operating systems (Microsoft Windows) such rent seeking behavior is to be deplored because prices of individual copies of the software should approach their very-inexpensive marginal cost. But the marginal cost of a niche piece of software such as this ADA software is complicated by the difficulty in earning back the development costs. This is the justification for patents, etc. whether you believe in it strongly or less strongly or not. I am less strongly a believer, but I'm not a pussy who downvotes people who disagree with me.

magice 10y ago

I do appreciate the effort to protect everyone's constitutional right. I wish best of luck to the pursuit. However, I feel like there is something very very wrong about method and intention of this type of actions/complains. One thing always bugs me about Americans: despite the liberties that they enjoy, despite the very real capacity to impact change in their government and laws, they all hate "the Government." Who is "the Government"? Wait, ain't them the very candidates that you the people vote into offices? Like this idea of "suing the US government." Who are you suing? The executive branch? Why are you suing them? This is over a law. It's a piece of legislation. The executive branch merely, you know, execute the laws. Why not sue Congress? Oh wait, why sue Congress when you can simply vote them out of office? Oh wait, why "stop enforcing" the laws when you can, you know, CHANGE the laws? This kinda reminds me of the libertarians' ideas of obstruction of legislation so that "the government does not spend more." If not spending is the right thing to do, why not educate people that. Even if one believes that 47% of the population is "takers," 53% is still a majority. So teach, advocate, change minds. But no, they prefer to obstruct their country, risk the centuries of their national reputation, put t heir fellow citizens to starvation. You know, if this happens in schoolyards, we probably call it "bullying." But if a bunch of libertarians do it, it's "principles." Obviously, I agree with the plaintiff here. However, the method is still wrong. And different from above, there are very few "takers" here. Mostly, it's faceless businesses that (let's be frank here) few people like. So why not take the high road? Why not educate your fellow citizens on the danger of the laws? Why not change minds? Why not raise money for candidates who will change the laws appropriately? In short: why not be a citizen rather than a rebel? Why not change the system for the better rather than obstruct it? Why not make your society/country a better place rather than simply fight it?

shkkmo 10y ago
> You know, if this happens in schoolyards, we probably call it "bullying." But if a bunch of libertarians do it, it's "principles." When a bunch of civil rights activists do it, is it still "bullying"? Similar lawsuits are why Texas and other US states can't enforce their anti-homosexual sodomy laws anymore.
nitrogen 10y ago
The organizations who benefit from these laws have significantly more lobbying power and popular influence than anyone else can hope to gain. Ostensibly one reason courts exist is to allow harms to smaller players to be addressed. I could make a bulleted list of why a republic doesn't work very well to tame media oligarchs, but it boils down to control of the media and decades of experience with framing the public conversation.

hackaflocka 10y ago

DJ Drama, the mixtape guy, was raided under the same law. It's an interesting story, google "dj drama raid"

chejazi 10y ago

This reminds me of a new patent Apple filed to disable video recording on iphones. Would winning this suit prevent that from being enforceable?

unabst 10y ago

What we need is the legal right to fork any IP. An open licensing model where no one needs permission. They just need to maybe pay an IP tax that trickles up to the previous contributors that helped produce what was forked. IP is completely flawed because it grants a monopoly on the fruits of specific knowledge or a work as if they are static end products, whereas in reality anything that is not evolving is dying. So the law restricts progress to the owners of the IP even when we could all contribute. And when there is incompetence or negligence by the owners, we have a situation where something good is ruined or withheld, with anyone fixing it being illegal. Removing IP is impossible because it's about profit, which is also a right. What we need is a new revenue system based on new principles of an expectation of progress and open contribution. Open source software and hardware is this, but just without any standard profit model backed by law.

cloudjacker 10y ago
who pays this tax? the person that forks the github repo?
- unabst 10y ago
  This is just one scenario, but you can imagine a system where the person who profits over any IP would pay IP tax, which would then get distributed upstream to previous registered contributors. IP producers would need to be tracked, but this is something that systems such as github already do extremely well, and credit card companies already run systems that process fees for every single transaction. Producers will announce themselves anyway, in hopes that their content will generate as much value as possible. Contributors would announce themselves in exchange for the right to use any IP. So say DJ Foo remixes a Michael Jackson song and uploads it to YouTube. YouTube will withhold the IP tax from the ad revenue paid out, and hand it over to the IP revenue service with the copyright profile. Michael Jackson will get paid for DJ Foo's remix automatically. Say DJ Foo does an original song and uploads it to YouTube. The same thing will happen, but DJ Foo will get paid from the IP revenue service since the IP is tied to DJ Foo as the originator. And imagine if all this information was open and public. We could lookup any product or work and see all of its activity and history as if it were open source code on github. In exchange for everyone paying an IP tax, anyone creating anything or adding something will be guaranteed to get paid for their contributions based on the maximum value society can generate from it. Violators will be shamed just by manipulating the system because they'd be doing it in public, and it would be in the IP creators best interest to police their work and report violations. Violations don't even need to be criminal. They just need to be fines that disincentivise those actions enough, much like parking tickets. An example violation would be uploading someone else's song without changing it or false claims regarding ownership.

SilasX 10y ago

Can someone do a tl;dr? This is upvoted very highly but it's assuming a ton of context I don't have. All I get is that someone wants to be able to tinker, but today that necessitates breaking some legally-enforced protections on the product. That's a valid point but I don't see how it's gotten to 1000 points, so I think I'm missing something. What's the lawsuit? What's the egregious use case?

LukeShu 10y ago
DRM. I assume you know of it, and that it's massively hated. It's "copy protection" software mechanisms that is meant to control how you use and copy media that you have. It's a pain. Nominally, it's there to prevent you from copying the media in illegal ways, but it often also prevents you from doing perfectly legal things with it. However, it's not just a pain to be worked around. In the US, since the DMCA section 1201 became effective in 1998, it is illegal to try to work around DRM. Mostly. Every couple of years, the Library of Congress gets to make a list of exceptions to 1201, of specific situations where you can work around DRM without it being illegal. Most recently was October 28, 2015. Many people still objected to section 1201 on principal that it prevents tinkering, but the Library of Congress' list of exceptions has generally kept people placated. As for context of their specific case: I'm not totally sure. User csydas suggested that this case became possible because of certain exceptions being removed from the latest version of the list (then some time for the EFF to compile the case). This seams reasonable to me, but to know for sure would involve legal details about the case that we don't have yet.
- SilasX 10y ago
  I'm familiar with DRM and the related DMCA criticism. I just don't get what's so special about this case. It's like when you see a really boring scene in a movie and everyone is laughing at references and subtext you're not getting, or on the edge in suspense. Like, if the scene is some dinner party, but right before you started watching someone had set a bomb under the table or something. What's the bomb here?
  - 10y ago

wonkyp2 10y ago

I cackled at the former, homeless vegan (or thereabouts) who started a shitstorm in the comments.

wonkyp2 10y ago

I cackled at the former, homeless vegan (or thereabouts) who started a shitstorm in the comments.

lifeisstillgood 10y ago

The UK government is trying to push for OSS as the default for all government software. As a default for all "societally beneficial"'software is a better goal and one highlighted here. Now my attempts so far are stymied by this weird half world. Most government contracts basically want either bums on seats contractors or to fundamentally hire "someone who has done it before" (effectively the same as wanting to buy off the shelf) So there is almost no way to seed fund the initial OSS development. Down thread people talk about a fund for starting OSS projects to provide things like this. Plover is an example of people trying it on their own - but a funded system that basically follows current gov work seems better.

ethanpil 10y ago

If something isn't done about this very soon, people will never remember or know what used to be. Most (many?) of us here have used VCRs, tape recorders and CD burners, etc, and understand what he is talking about when we remember the days when we had freedom to own information. Today's kids have been well trained by Apple, Google and Netflix and hardly even understand what we are talking about. "Oh, you don't have an iPhone anymore? Just buy it on Google Play and you will have it again on your Galaxy." is a quote I have heard more than once...

LELISOSKA 10y ago

This entire cause is a sham, beyond belief, a cause that seeks to degrade the value of creative thought and intellectual property. Before we get into socioeconomic barrier discussions I am a former disabled homeless person who is how the founder of one of the most powerful environmental activism groups in the country. I started out with nothing and worked myself to where I am, using original and creative thought and at no time have I ever needed anyone’s intellectual property to build myself to where I am. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, that supports this complete bullshit erosion of the rights of content creators everywhere, does nothing in this world but fight for causes that continually reduce the market value of original ideas. They claim to fight for things like “free speech” but what they really fight for is the rights of anonymous hate groups to steal your photos and write nasty messages on them. They fight for the rights of the meek to inherit the Earth so they can then destroy it with their abject failures. Look to the recent lawsuit Google v Oracle, where Oracle sued Google over the use of their software in Android. Google avoided billions in liability and it was all thanks to the work of the EFF, who suck off the teat of Silicon Valley and protect their billionaire buddies from financial liability, and then they support “little guys” like this so they can continue their 1% supporting ruse. I look forward to watching this mad grab at free intellectual property get slapped down by Washington DC. This is not about fighting the government, this guy is a puppet being used by the power that be in Silicon Valley in order to allow companies like Google to continue to rob, loot, and pillage other people’s intellectual property without financial liability.

LELISOSKA 10y ago

ankurdhama 10y ago

The problem is this new business model where they don't just sell you things/stuff, rather they also sell you "specific rights" along with the stuff. The usual things like you cannot do this or that with the stuff that you bought from us. The sole purpose is to keep earning money even after the one time deal of buying the stuff.

reddytowns 10y ago

You know, no one asked you tech people from getting involved in law making. Nowadays, a law maker can't seem to do anything at all without some techie crying foul. Their argument always is some nonsensical technobabble, which the courts can't really understand anyway, often giving in to their demands just to get them to go away. And it's such a shame, too, since those laws were bought and paid for by lobbyists, and what does it say about the rest of the country if one can't expect to get what one pays for when lobbying at the highest level of government?

Daphnenost 10y ago

> HN is a weird place to bemoan prices when many here are seeking unicorn valuations while disrupting industry. I think the insulting tone towards those that disagree with him might have something to do with it. And the above statement is just plain absurd.

Susanelst 10y ago

I'm wondering if that's "more illegal" than fixing the hardware component (which is silly because changing the ID can be simpler). In hardware you can just say you've replaced a broken part even if it's 99% of the hardware, right?