3 ms·

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]

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]