Scripps Employees Called 'Hackers' For Exposing Massive Security Flaw
Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
Judge rules that circumventing DRM is not illegal
In what will surely become a landmark case -- or at least a massive thorn in the MPAA and RIAA's clubbed, pygmy feet -- a judge has ruled that bypassing DRM via hacking, reverse engineering or any other means is not in itself illegal. The case itself ruled that General Electric, in using hacked security dongles to repair some uninterruptible power supplies produced by another company, did not violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Why? Because the end goal was legal. If the hacked dongles had been used for the forces of evil, the story would be different.
While this doesn't sound immediately applicable to DRM-protected software, music and movies, bear in mind that the DMCA is the foundation for every spurious copyright claim made by RIAA, MPAA and the myriad of other digital rights groups. In essence, this ruling means that you're free to break DRM on media that you own. No longer is it illegal to rip your own DVDs or crippled audio CDs onto your hard disk. I think there might also be some implication for the godawful DRM used on contemporary games like Assassin's Creed 2 (and if you're a lawyer, please leave a comment!)
In case you were wondering, this doesn't make piracy legal. It just means that bypassing DRM to reach a legal goal -- i.e. fair use of things you own -- is now protected by common law.
[via electronista]
Comments
31
Subscribe to commentsFredJul 26th 2010 11:27PM
In the US they are. The courts have long held them to be binding contracts. Whether you like that or not has nothing to do with established law. Now they are held to the same standard as other contracts (i.e. they cannot be unconscionable, such as strange distant forum choices), but they are legally binding contracts nonetheless.
ragtagJul 26th 2010 9:20AM
This is great. I hope they keep chipping away at these laws bit by bit, till we have a more sane system in US. I'm not for piracy, but if you buy a DVD and want to watch it on your phone, you should legally be allowed to rip it into a format your phone can play back.
AaronJul 26th 2010 10:53AM
I think this case may be different than anything you would do with copyrighted material, because, it's still infringement to copy the work, even if you "own" the media.
Although I have no tolerance for bit-torrenters and file "sharers," I do believe the content industries (music, software, movies, et al) do need to create a proper way to license their material across platforms. The fact that people spend $20-$40 on a plastic disc which costs 5 cents to make gives them an inflated sense of ownership consistent with that inflated price. It would make more sense to pay for a license with varying degrees of quality and usage rights.
For example, a single machine portable version low-def with a week usage period could be $3, whereas a high-def version with rights for public performance (i.e. using clips on youtube, etc) could cost $100. Blue-ray quality could be $20 with a an option to burn for playback on cross-licensed DRM machines.
The Ultraviolet DRM scheme looks like it could accomplish this. I think the more possibilities the content owners give for users to come into the legal realm, the less excuse there is for thieves to use inflexibility as an excuse to steal.
ragtagJul 26th 2010 11:40AM
Even with such a solution, the content producers are never going to cover all the devices their customers may want to use. This includes Windows, OSX, Linux, Androird, iOS, Symbian, WindowsMobile7, Haiku, Solaris, game consoles ad infinitum. So having any kind of DRM, and then banning breaking it, is going to limit the customers in the end. The sad thing is that pirates will not be constrained by the same limitations, so in the end they're getting a better deal than paying customers.
Brian WatsonJul 26th 2010 12:35PM
Aaron,
You can't possibly be serious? Is your real name Lars??
Sorry, but if I buy a downloadable mp3 or a CD, I will play it on any and all my devices, as often as I want, and for as long as I want. And I'll make a backup copy if it suits my fancy. I understand giving it away to some other party isn't legal, but I'm not talking about that. Everything I described previously is fair use and is what I am paying for. If a company offers some other "licensing" or "contract" they can stick it in Oregon (where the sun doesn't shine), because I won't be buying it. Dare I even say that's assinine.
Content owners/providers listen up: Consumers ARE NOT going to pay you every time we want to consume content. Nor are we going to pay again to consume already paid for content on a different device. Those are stupid notions, based on milking content for more than it's worth, and you need to get over it.
When consumers buy something (notice I didn't use the word "rent") they expect to be able to use it just like they are used to for the last umpteen decades with cassettes, CDs, and VHS tapes - at any time, and on any device they own. I can almost hear the "oppressed" screaming already about how digital content can be copied perfectly and things are therefore not the same as they were in the days of yore. Boo hoo. In mind of the consumer it is NOT different - bear that in mind. Draconian schemes to limit and/or control piss consumers off, and aren't going to get YOU what you want: more money. Convenience is what consumers desire - and pay for - most. If you want more money, then give it to them...
AaronJul 26th 2010 1:24PM
Brian,
I don't agree that you are "buying" content when you buy it in a CD, DVD, etc. You are buying a license to use the content on the format you purchase. So, technically you only own the plastic which holds the media, not the content. That's the difference between physical and intellectual property. The owner of the property is only giving you a limited license on use.
That said, I totally agree with you - and I believe it was my rather opaque point above - that once you buy a permanent license (i.e. buy the CD, DVD, game, etc) you should be able to access the content in whatever equivalent form you choose. The company may still want to discriminate pricing for standard and high def, but if you buy a movie it should play everywhere, and you should be able to use it on ALL of your devices. And you shouldn't have to rip/burn/transcode/snuffalufagus anything. The content should be available, online, for any equivalent format you want and be included in your license. There's no need to make consumers rip and decode and backup dvds, just make the licenses permit that. Or, hell, make replacement CDs and DVDs available for manufacturing cost plus shipping to anyone with a beat-up disc. They DID pay for the content, and they should be catered to as a content licensee.
We have just gotten so used to a self-service model and the content owners have gotten so combative that there's not much outside the box thinking going on. People need to pay for their content, but companies need to ensure they can use it as they want on their own devices. As you point out, Brian, convenience for the user is key, and the digital distribution and delivery of products needs to reflect this. The more legitimate paths there are, the less excuse those who just want to illegally take have.
Yours,
Aaron (Lars)
RichJul 26th 2010 2:22PM
Brian,
You are thinking of Washington, were people don't tan, they rust...
minibarJul 26th 2010 11:46AM
it's hard to agree on allowances when there are so many interpretations of dmca, so broaching a topic like this should contain a dls dmca best reading.
important to remember when buying drm: you're not buying unlocked content, but rather the combination of media and content. it would probably be a very steep uphill climb to legally get anywhere near a useful "backup" with drm across different media forms without the drm explicitly allowing for such, or at least that is my best reading of dmca.
Brian WatsonJul 26th 2010 3:18PM
Hi Aaron,
OK, your subsequent explanation makes much more sense. I apologize for calling you Lars! I agree with your points - especially the part about not much out of the box thinking going on. And personally, I don't even mind transcoding content myself. I figure if I bought it in one format and want it in another, that's my problem, not the problem of the content owner. I just don't want them to try and prevent me from doing it.
While I understand the technical difference between physical and intellectual property, most consumers don't. They expect - and I think it a reasonable expectation - to able to do with it as I described in my first post. I think most consumers understand that making copies for friends, etc. is illegal.
The problem here as I see it, is that the content owners have taken this "licensing/rent/lease" model (because it's "intellectual property") to an extreme. While technically and legally within their rights, in practice it is absurd to a level I can't put in print. And that was my point when I said I wouldn't buy content with such licenses/restrictions. And I urge all consumers to just say no to such crap!
And the more they try and tighten their grasp, the more buyers (and money) will slip through their fingers...
KualaBeeJul 27th 2010 2:12AM
Whoa I can't believe the hubris of MPAA and RIAA in actually trying to get the just the act of bypassing DRM a crime for personal use/fair use. I personally have broken in the past, hundreds of Itune mp3 DRMs when it was still DRM, and never thought anything unethical about it. From my desktop to my labtop, and on my non ipad mp3 player.
I am usually on the side of copyrights and think the whole "sharing" argument is bullshit, but the MPAA and RIAA is taking advantage of US legalism way too much. You are technically on the side of the law, but original intent and purpose be damned. It much be a soul destroying job to work for the MPAA and RIAA, it must be like working for Stasi.
ragtagJul 27th 2010 7:18AM
I think we can expect the whole copyright debate to be quite chaotic for another decade or so, until we find a new balance. Currently both sides are going too far in opposite directions, many big copyright holders are removing consumers basic rights through draconian laws and DRM, while many consumers are violating copyright by downloading material illegally.
It was somewhat the same when print was invented. Suddenly someone with a printing press could take any work, and make hundreds of copies of it, with comparatively little effort. Before that time books would have to copied by hand, so there wasn't much need for copyright. It took quite a few years before laws surrounding printing fell in place. The arrival of the internet, and even easier sharing of information, is in many ways bigger than the invention of the printing press. Now anyone with web access can distribute material globally to 1000s of people in a matter of minutes.