
Why I’m Suing the US Government - ivank
https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4782
======
DoubleGlazing
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.

~~~
ggambetta
Would be easier to do a hex search on the binaries, find the device id of the
old mic, and patch in the device id of the new mic. I'd be surprised if they
had bothered to obfuscate the id in any way.

~~~
DoubleGlazing
Now you mention it I feel like I overlooked the obvious solution.

~~~
beachstartup
permanently modifying the hardware is the more portable solution. it will
always work with unmodified software i.e. at a colleague's location. i presume
your wife works with others that use the same platform.

~~~
hueving
>permanently modifying the hardware is the more portable solution. it will
always work with unmodified software i.e. at a colleague's location.

No, as OP mentioned, the software was compiled to match the device ID of the
mic it was shipped with. So it would only work with versions of the software
that were the same as OP's.

~~~
milankragujevic
I think you misinterpreted. It's the USB device ID, which contains a unique to
the model ID and the vendor ID, so any software would work with any device if
it has the same model ID. There isn't a such thing (at least not standardized)
as a unique device ID.

~~~
hueving
I think you misinterpreted, because you repeated what I said.

>So it would only work with versions of the software that were the same as
OP's

~~~
MertsA
What he's saying is that there might be V1, 2 and 3 of the microphone in
question. The software is tied to a single version of that microphone so any
microphone of the same version is indistinguishable to the software.

>the software was compiled to match the device ID of the mic it was shipped
with.

Since there isn't a "device ID", only a "Model ID", there isn't a new compiled
version for everything being shipped. There's maybe 3 or 4 versions of the
software total and there's probably one version that's more prolific than the
others.

He may not have been able to buy one of those USB Microphones off of Amazon
that had the same VID and PID but the old model that he repaired is one of the
few versions that the manufacturer used so there's a pretty decent chance that
the fixed one will work as is with another computer with the software on it.

------
hlandau
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.

~~~
comex
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...

~~~
ashitlerferad
CSS encryption on DVDs doesn't "effectively control access to a work" because
it is easy to crack. That doesn't stop copyright holders and the DMCA from
deeming that DeCSS is illegal.

~~~
eli
No, the law means "effective" in the sense of "has the effect of controlling
access" not in the sense of "does a great job at it." CSS clearly does have an
effect of controlling access to people trying to copy DVDs even if the
encryption is weak.

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

------
onetwotree
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.

~~~
briandear
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.)

~~~
wheaties
No, farmers have very little power. Agri-corps, big business which collects
the majority of those subsidies, have power. These laws keep little guys down.

------
rayiner
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.

~~~
astazangasta
The real problem, of course, is that the Internet today consists almost
exclusively of private companies profiting from other people's content.
Twitter doesn't pay its users, it makes money off their tweets AND by having
them look at ads (yes, this is work). Similarly with Facebook, or with any
review aggregator (Yelp, Amazon, Google+), monetizing the free labor of
others.

The DMCA protects _certain forms of property_ very jealously, but other forms
(e.g. a review) aren't even recognized as property, and the idea of users
being appropriately compensated (as we'd expect each nickel to be accounted
for a song owned by EMI) is practically absurd. (Note that I do not want the
world where we monetize everything)

At the end of the day, which forms of digital property we create and enforce
are going to be what determines who can amass wealth - the existing regime was
obviously set in place to benefit corporations, billionaires, not joe user.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Twitter exists as a platform that allows politicians, entertainers, businesses
and more communicate more quickly and cheaply with people interested in them
than ever before. The profit a user gets out of Twitter depends on what is put
into it.

~~~
astazangasta
What you're describing as profit is a diffuse social value, public discourse,
not a narrowly-defined piece of property that can be monetized and sold
(views/impressions/clicks).

I would like to suggest out that the latter is a heavily-defended form of
property (belonging to the platform, not the user who does the work of
viewing/clicking) that is monetized into the billions, while the former does
not directly, probably just because it cannot be defined by terms of contract,
and would be exercised on behalf of users, a diffuse unorganized source of
power, and not the corporation, a narrow, organized source of power with
specific intent.

We might despise users for not having their shit together, and watch happily
while large corporations cart off billions and build giant systems of
surveillance to further probe us, but this sort of 'vae victis' attitude is I
think why 2016 is the debacle that it is.

------
unabst
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
who pays this tax? the person that forks the github repo?

~~~
unabst
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.

~~~
cloudjacker
Okay, now one more paragraph about how anyone is incentivized to create
anything in this system

~~~
unabst
Ah... You miss an important point. There doesn't need to be an incentive to
create anything. Creation is the reward. Creative minds will create no matter
what.

The trick is to create a society where creators get fed, and that still
remains compatible with capitalism because we are in love with capitalism.

~~~
unabst
Just to add, this is the creator's side. You can imagine a consumer side where
everyone decides to put in X dollars like public radio, but watch their
donation get equally distributed based on the content they consume. For both
sides, the idea is to remove the profit motive from the platform itself, make
it as automated and hands free as possible, make it fair, make it as open and
data driven as possible, and to let creators focus on creating and nothing
else.

And maybe just anyone who wants to join is good enough. By joining, creators
will get paid automatically just by publishing content that generates income
for themselves or anyone else.

------
ethanpil
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...

------
DanBlake
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.

~~~
zekevermillion
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.

~~~
gthtjtkt
> What happens when some maniac changes the software to make autopilot into
> full self driving, then plows into a minivan on its way to Little League
> practice?

We can't let these hypothetical worst-case scenarios be an excuse to stifle
innovation.

 _What happens if we let people modify their microwaves and a terrorist uses
his to give kids cancer!?!?_

 _What if we let people tinker with their toasters and somebody uses one to
electrocute a pool full of kids!?!?_

 _Please, think of the children!_

~~~
alexbock
> What happens if we let people modify their microwaves and a terrorist uses
> his to give kids cancer!?!?

I know this was said in jest, but given the (generally unfounded) fears some
people have about microwaves and cellphones I want to point out that exposure
to unshielded microwave radiation isn't going to cause cancer (at least not
any more than anything else that heats you up could somehow cause cancer)
because microwave radiation is non-ionizing; you would need at least
ultraviolet light for that (and UV-C or X-rays would be most effective).

The biggest danger with strong microwave radiation would be boiling your
eyeballs as they lack the cooling most of your body has but contain
significant amounts of water.

~~~
mountaineer22
What about cooking the marrow in bone?

~~~
Dylan16807
If that's not a weird joke, I really want to hear why you think marrow is
going to absorb more microwaves than any other part of your body. Because it
won't, it's an overall heat like sitting in a sauna. At low power it's warm,
past that it's unpleasant, past that you have heat stroke.

~~~
gohrt
bone marrow is one of the parts of the body that has high water content and
thus would heat faster than others under radiation.

Sauna heat does not preferentially target liquid for heating.

~~~
Dylan16807
Almost all of your body is high water content, and the heat will easily
conduct the last little bit.

By the time you have to worry about specific non-brain parts being overheated,
your overall temperature is such that you're braindead.

~~~
icebraining
Actually, no, you can easily sustain heavy damage to certain organs without
being brain-dead:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn)

~~~
Dylan16807
I should have chosen my words to be more focused, I suppose. You can damage
certain organs. You will not be cooking deep internal organs with an
unshielded microwave. Not without cooking everything else.

Pretend my original comment ended with "Past that, you basically fell in a
fire and it doesn't matter what is heating you." Is there anything wrong with
that? Or the rejection of the idea that bone marrow is at risk?

------
dikaiosune
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
Also be sure to click their Amazon affiliate link before buying stuff, it's an
easy way to give for free.

~~~
dikaiosune
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/jgpmh...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smile-
always/jgpmhnmjbhgkhpbgelalfpplebgfjmbf?hl=en)

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/amazonsmilere...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/amazonsmileredirector/?src=search)

------
forgotpwtomain
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?

~~~
fweespeech
> 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-
se...](https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca-
section-1201-research-and-technology-restrictions-violate)

> 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
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.

~~~
stickfigure
I don't see the problem. I paid for some content, why shouldn't I be able to
view it in my manner of preference? If I want to watch it mixed up with some
funky third-party subtitles, or a chat window with my friends, why not? You're
assuming that Andrew Huang's business model requires sharing content.

Here's a practical application: Due to travel, sometimes my wife and I are
apart when the latest Must Watch Episode of something comes out. We will fire
up skype and hbonow/netflix and watch it together. Dorky, yes. But also a pain
in the ass to keep synced when pausing for bathroom breaks, snacks, etc.
Someone should invent an app for that! Oh... but it would be illegal under
DMCA.

~~~
6stringmerc
The problem with your initial paragraph is that you assume making derivative
content is legal in one's own home, DMCA not withstanding. Outside of "actual"
Four-Factor Test Fair Use, it's infringement. Making a device to enable it is
highly suspect as a motivation for an outright repeal of the legislation.

You do know the app you describe wouldn't be illegal under the DMCA if your
program was licensed by the rights holders, right? That's what we're getting
to here. If Huang's post described how he went about trying to negotiate and
make deals with the content providers his device wants to piggy back on, and
they were terrible in response, that's a different game - I'd be a lot more
sympathetic then, no doubt. Show me where he did the due diligence and
crunched the numbers, really!

It certainly doesn't change the basis of argument being asinine when
realistically DMCA protections don't get in the way of day-to-day Fair Use. It
just takes some effort, not buying some Bunnie Studios box off the shelf so he
can make a profit. That's what is so stupid about trying to digitally
steamroll protections - any time a human can SEE or HEAR something they can
find a way to jack it and do something. It's just reality.

------
mrmondo
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
If only my precious American vote had any power over this whatsoever. (My
foreign colleagues seem to think it does.)

------
filoeleven
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.

------
dang
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).

------
thinkMOAR
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
Suing the government to stop enforcement of some law is a pretty well
established procedure at this point.

~~~
thinkMOAR
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
Which people are you talking about? This is done pretty regularly but
generally judicial review tends to favor conservative interests.

~~~
thinkMOAR
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
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."_

~~~
thinkMOAR
ah yes that was a great case, thanks for the reminder. I'm not from the US but
i have heard about that. But that does kind of shows what i meant, afaik that
was a big and hefty case? And all because some people decided what another
person could do with (mostly) her body. (hoping to get it undone).

But this one has economic (money) aspects, i fear this might be a bigger
struggle (while people may differ about whats more important).

------
lifeisstillgood
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.

------
SilasX
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
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
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?

~~~
allenz
You should be excited about this case because it seeks to overturn the anti-
circumvention provisions of the DMCA. It is notable because it's backed by the
EFF, notable researchers, and a top law firm. If it succeeds, it would be a
huge win for our right to hack--many have posted stories about how those
provisions affected them.

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

~~~
madez
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
Unfortunately the TPP is enshrining the US copyright approach in other
countries.

------
reddytowns
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?

------
tomc1985
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?

------
shmerl
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.

------
ankurdhama
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.

------
BenedictS
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.

------
LELISOSKA
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.

------
maerF0x0
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.

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

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

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

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

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

------
wonkyp2
I cackled at the former, homeless vegan (or thereabouts) who started a
shitstorm in the comments.

------
known
I'll support;

------
blastrat
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
> 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
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
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"

------
magice
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?

~~~
nathas
> "Oh wait, why sue Congress when you can simply vote them out of office?"

That can be radically difficult because of gerrymandering.

That aside, launching a public campaign, garnering votes, and voting on a
_single issue_ is often the wrong way to elect a representative.

For instance, I think the 2nd amendment is actually a good idea to prevent
invasion of a foreign force (an armed population is very hard to rule over).
However, I pretty much never vote for candidates that support the 2nd
amendment because they often also deny climate change, vote for private prison
control, etc. I can't go with their whole platform. I don't want them
representing me.

So in those cases, when you have one issue - especially when it's just part of
a whole (e.g. just section 1201) - it seems like the right approach,
especially when you think there's a piece of legislation (like the
Constitution) that supersedes and invalidates the legislation you're looking
at.

~~~
oofabz
> That can be radically difficult because of gerrymandering.

Duverger's Law also complicates things:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)

------
ryanswapp
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.

~~~
pjc50
The _purpose_ of legislation isn't relevant, only the _effect_ of the
legislation. And the effects are the problem; potentially any debugger could
be considered a "circumvention tool". Just like scope creep has caused
laboratory glassware to be considered illegal "drug paraphernalia" in places.

1201 also has the effect of banning circumvention that does not infringe
copyright. Which is supposedly addressed by the weird adhoc Library of
Congress exemption system, but only in a very limited set of cases.

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

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

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

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

~~~
athenot
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)

------
6stringmerc
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
> 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_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
circumvention#Fair_Use_and_Circumvention)

~~~
6stringmerc
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).

