15 ms·

I don't know or remember the details of the DMCA, but does it not require the copy protection to be of some reasonable effectiveness (e.g. reasonable cryptograp

by Delk 3y ago

I don't know or remember the details of the DMCA, but does it not require the copy protection to be of some reasonable effectiveness (e.g. reasonable cryptography)? Or does it consider the "copy protection" scheme protected regardless of how weak the scheme or claim is? I remember that in Finland, it was debated in courts whether breaking DVD CSS encryption using readily downloadable software was infringement upon an effective copy protection scheme or not. An appeals court decided it was (i.e. CSS was deemed "effective"), but the requirement that the copy protection scheme be "effective" in order for circumvention to be considered illegal is still there in copyright law. (The legislation is based on whatever the EU-wide regulation is and includes provisions somewhat similar to the DMCA such as the prohibition of circumvention.) I doubt that "copy protection" that can be circumvented by reading the YouTube web page source code would be deemed effective under that law. Does the DMCA not have a similar limitation? Or is the RIAA just trying to play the lobbying and rhetoric game despite having weak legal grounds? (Wouldn't be surprising.)

kmeisthax 3y ago
This sounds like a transposition[0] and translation error. The word "effective" has two meanings: - Is strong enough to keep you from copying the thing - Has the effect of keeping you from copying the thing Congress intended the latter meaning and US courts adopted that. The first meaning would be self-defeating: once someone figured out how to break a copy protection system, it would no longer be effective, so you'd only be able to prosecute the first person to break the system. If effective meant "is strong enough" I don't think DVD CSS would count because they specifically used export-grade encryption. The rule (part of ITAR, AFAIK) was that 40-bits was the max entropy you could have, specifically so the NSA could break foreign-operated encryption systems. But this is kind of silly - computers are getting faster all the time, so it seems odd that a measure considered copy protection yesterday would stop being copy protection today just because we can crack passwords faster. [0] Transposition is the concept of copying EU regulations into member state law. I'm using the term slightly broader than EU law. While WTO rules don't have a direct transposition requirement, USTR conditioned lots of trade deals on transposing DMCA 1201 into local law.
boomboomsubban 3y ago
The DMCA says it needs to be "effective," but then defines it as >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. Which sounds like basically anything they call DRM is DRM.
bitwize 3y ago
> I don't know or remember the details of the DMCA, but does it not require the copy protection to be of some reasonable effectiveness (e.g. reasonable cryptography)? No. "Effective" is defined in section 1201 as meaning that the technological measure prevents copying "during the normal course of its operation" -- i.e., the "happy path" of the code prevents unauthorized copying. No matter how trivially the code may be broken, breaking it is a felony. A simple bit of JavaScript embedded in a page that prevents right clicks (to download images) would be an "effective technological measure" under the DMCA. If you put up a web page showing how to get around this with Chrome developer tools, you are "trafficking in circumvention tools" and can be found civilly/criminally liable under the DMCA. Note that there are Library of Congress exceptions for circumventing, but not for trafficking. So you can figure out how to, say, rip DVDs yourself if doing so falls under a LoC exemption. But if you then turn around and publish how to do it, you are still in violation of the DMCA.
ascagnel_ 3y ago
> I don't know or remember the details of the DMCA, but does it not require the copy protection to be of some reasonable effectiveness (e.g. reasonable cryptography)? Or does it consider the "copy protection" scheme protected regardless of how weak the scheme or claim is? The DMCA has no such provision; if a work is DRM-encumbered, it always enjoys the anti-circumvention protections of the DMCA. It’s one of the main reasons why I think works available only with DRM shouldn’t be eligible for copyright protection: the presence of DRM prohibits the creation of an archive-appropriate copy (in a legal sense, not in the quality sense) that can survive the copyright term of the work. If the owner of a work wants to only release it with DRM, they have to rely on other laws with higher burdens of evidence to provide legal protection.

by Delk 3y ago

kmeisthax 3y ago

This sounds like a transposition[0] and translation error. The word "effective" has two meanings: - Is strong enough to keep you from copying the thing - Has the effect of keeping you from copying the thing Congress intended the latter meaning and US courts adopted that. The first meaning would be self-defeating: once someone figured out how to break a copy protection system, it would no longer be effective, so you'd only be able to prosecute the first person to break the system. If effective meant "is strong enough" I don't think DVD CSS would count because they specifically used export-grade encryption. The rule (part of ITAR, AFAIK) was that 40-bits was the max entropy you could have, specifically so the NSA could break foreign-operated encryption systems. But this is kind of silly - computers are getting faster all the time, so it seems odd that a measure considered copy protection yesterday would stop being copy protection today just because we can crack passwords faster. [0] Transposition is the concept of copying EU regulations into member state law. I'm using the term slightly broader than EU law. While WTO rules don't have a direct transposition requirement, USTR conditioned lots of trade deals on transposing DMCA 1201 into local law.

boomboomsubban 3y ago

The DMCA says it needs to be "effective," but then defines it as >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. Which sounds like basically anything they call DRM is DRM.

bitwize 3y ago

> I don't know or remember the details of the DMCA, but does it not require the copy protection to be of some reasonable effectiveness (e.g. reasonable cryptography)? No. "Effective" is defined in section 1201 as meaning that the technological measure prevents copying "during the normal course of its operation" -- i.e., the "happy path" of the code prevents unauthorized copying. No matter how trivially the code may be broken, breaking it is a felony. A simple bit of JavaScript embedded in a page that prevents right clicks (to download images) would be an "effective technological measure" under the DMCA. If you put up a web page showing how to get around this with Chrome developer tools, you are "trafficking in circumvention tools" and can be found civilly/criminally liable under the DMCA. Note that there are Library of Congress exceptions for circumventing, but not for trafficking. So you can figure out how to, say, rip DVDs yourself if doing so falls under a LoC exemption. But if you then turn around and publish how to do it, you are still in violation of the DMCA.

ascagnel_ 3y ago

> I don't know or remember the details of the DMCA, but does it not require the copy protection to be of some reasonable effectiveness (e.g. reasonable cryptography)? Or does it consider the "copy protection" scheme protected regardless of how weak the scheme or claim is? The DMCA has no such provision; if a work is DRM-encumbered, it always enjoys the anti-circumvention protections of the DMCA. It’s one of the main reasons why I think works available only with DRM shouldn’t be eligible for copyright protection: the presence of DRM prohibits the creation of an archive-appropriate copy (in a legal sense, not in the quality sense) that can survive the copyright term of the work. If the owner of a work wants to only release it with DRM, they have to rely on other laws with higher burdens of evidence to provide legal protection.