Groups Call On Congress To Explore Fixing DMCA's Broken Anti-Circumvention Provisions
from the about-time dept
A bunch of companies (including us) and public interest groups all came together this week to ask Congress to hold hearings to look into fixing the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, and to recognize that any law that says you don't actually own what you've bought is a big problem. It focuses mainly on the problems with mobile phone unlocking, but asks Congress to go further than just a duct taped fix, and to actually explore why the cell phone unlocking problem came about and to fix the real root cause: an anti-circumvention provision that prevents people from making use of products they've actually bought.In the longer term, we believe that the widespread concern about cell phone unlocking illustrates how these parts of the DMCA can interfere with consumer rights and competition policy. This interference is not limited to the realm of mobile communications devices. Congress must take action to ensure that laws and policies are keeping up with the pace of technological change. Not addressing these questions will stunt advances in access to digital media for people with disabilities and may prevent new innovations and competitive uses for emerging devices, as uncertainties around the law and the three-year cycle creates a chilling effect for individuals, businesses, innovators and investors who may be covered by the law.Actually getting Congress to care about this may take some work, but it is a key issue if the US really wants to remain competitive with other countries. Furthermore, anyone who claims that we can't fix this part of the DMCA because of international obligations is really only demonstrating why IP issues shouldn't be a part of any trade agreement.
To that end, we request that as the leadership of the two committees of jurisdiction, you convene hearings this year to investigate these possible reforms to the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA in order to begin a thorough discussion of these problems.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1201, anti-circumvention, congress, copyright, dmca, fix dmca
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We don't need to "fix the DMCA"
You frequently hear that the "safe harbors" in the DMCA help to promote the Internet and protect useful sites like YouTube from liability, but this view is completely inconsistent with reality. In the real world, the "safe harbors" establish massive chilling effects and create liability.
Just look at YouTube. What are they being sued for by Viacom? Liability due to violating the DMCA's safe harbor provisions.
Look at Veoh. They recently won their case, but only after they'd been sued into bankruptcy and their business shut down. What were they sued for? Liability due to violating the DMCA's safe harbor provisions.
Look at Megaupload. They bent over backwards to comply with the DMCA and go the extra mile to stay on the content industry's good side, but when they went and tried to launch a service that would have directly competed with the recording industry, what legal doctrine did the industry use to get Megaupload raided and shut down? Liability due to violating the DMCA's safe harbor provisions!
If the DMCA did not exist, there would be no safe harbor provisions to violate, and no liability therefrom. Internet services would operate under Common Carrier doctrine, which gives them no liability whatsoever as long as they treat content fairly.
This is the same legal doctrine that other carriers of content originated by other people work under, such as UPS and FedEx. Have you ever heard of them being sued for delivering something that was illegal? If YouTube was operating under Common Carrier, they could have laughed Viacom out of court instead of ending up in a long, protracted lawsuit.
The DMCA does nothing to help the Internet. It is evil and corrupt from beginning to end, and does not need to be fixed or reformed, but repealed in its entirety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We don't need to "fix the DMCA"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We don't need to "fix the DMCA"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We don't need to "fix the DMCA"
The DMCA about common carrier I think is leaned way to far in the realm of copyright holders. IMHO, if Viacom wants to take down a video from YouTube, they should have to file a civil complaint. Get a judge to sign off, then subpoena Google to remove the video. Then, they can take legal action against the poster if the judge allowed them to search records for the poster.
This is the way the laws were written for the US, it's takes judicial oversight to enforce laws. Currently we have a system that is guilty until you can prove innocence, and that is the part that back asswords.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We don't need to "fix the DMCA"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We don't need to "fix the DMCA"
So in reality it's not such a bad thing, it just needs judicial oversight because of the myriad of abuses by both the public and publishing companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We don't need to "fix the DMCA"
One of them is the safe harbors, that is a pretty good one, would you like to repeal that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We don't need to "fix the DMCA"
...
Did you seriously not just read what I wrote at all?
Yes, I want the so-called "safe harbors" gone! The term is an Orwellian abuse of the language. They do nothing useful for the Internet. They do not keep anyone safe, and they don't protect anyone from liability; they actually create liability that would not exist in their absence, to say nothing of the extralegal abomination that is the DMCA takedown system--which is an intrinsic part of the "safe harbors." Why would any Internet user want to keep them around?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We don't need to "fix the DMCA"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We don't need to "fix the DMCA"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We don't need to "fix the DMCA"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We don't need to "fix the DMCA"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We don't need to "fix the DMCA"
One company would end up getting sued at some point. They would go to court, their defense would be, "we operate as a common carrier. We have no liability for user-generated content, and the prosecution can go screw themselves." And they would win, and it would set a precedent, and that would be the end of that. No more DMCA takedowns, no more extrajudicial censorship as an end-run around the law, no more chilling effect due to the threat of DMCA liability.
(And, also, no more net neutrality problems, as Common Carrier status would cover that too. Instead of trying to screw us over, all the ISPs would be scrambling to ensure they did a good job taking care of our data, or they would end up with liability issues due to *not* acting as a common carrier. Two birds with one stone.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright erodes the right own something for everybody, the DMCA is just a symptom of that system.
This is exactly why copyright was so limited, is a monopoly, it is harmful to social and commercial interests, it causes great pains to everyone, and was exactly for that reason that it was so limited.
But as all competing interests is now the time to see it rise just to see it fall again.
Its rise will remind everyone why it was done the way it was, something people seem to have forgotten.
When they realize that what you thought you bought was really "the rights to some uses but not all uses" I want to see how people will justify that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is exactly what copyright does and people are slowly waking up to that little fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oooh, the Megaupload Mega-Malady has returned!
Megaupload was simply grifting off infringing content, had to know it, and NEVER remitted a cent to those who made the content.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike's "new business model" (file hosts like Megaupload) is to grift on income streams that should go to content creators -- and then call the creators greedy!
13:15:14[o-226-5]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good job trying to head me off at the pass. The reality is the reality, and completely unlikely to change. And whether it should or shouldn't be included in treaties is immaterial. It already is and will continue to be as old treaties are renewed and old treaties are pretty much modeled on existing ones.
Moreover, the House is more tied up with things that 99% of Americans find somewhat more urgent. Immigration reform, gun control, the deficit.... things more people care about more than your ability to freeload without restriction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As an aside, why no CwF by including an edit function that people constantly clamor for. Ars Technica has a good one, you should freeload from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Awesome logic there. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media mogul newspeak
Now that you robber barons are being more blatant about things, people are waking up to the issues.
People may not care about art, but they do care about their phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
It's a mistake to call them "public interest groups" because they're doing this in the companies's interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
Nope.
Once you sell it, then it isn't yours anymore.
Those property rights that you love so much only work if they are applied equally to everyone.
So you aren't just cutting off the branch you are sitting on, you're taking a chain saw to the trunk of the entire tree.
You are not a special or unique snowflake. You don't get special treatment. The rights that you are hallucinating don't exist.
You have a monopoly on making and distributing copies.
That's it.
You're the one that gets to pound sand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
Yes I am and yes I do.
I can do special things that only a very few amount of people can do. That's why I'm protected.
I'm aware that you have a difficult time coping with the fact that you're not special, but that's not my problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
Not even big pharma get the crazy of copyrights and they tried.
Are you more special than a bioengineer?
Aircraft engineers?
Auto engineers?
They don't get to go charge others after they sold something, why should you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
I can do special things that only a very few amount of people can do. That's why I'm protected.
So are Master Plumbers.
But they don't get to collect payment every time someone flushes the toilet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
Really? So for each unique person you allow to use your toilet you send a royalty check to your plumber for remainder of his life plus 70 years?
It's very different. Plumbers get paid once for work completed and then move onto the next job. If plumbers had protection like copyright, then they could install one toilet, rest on their laurels and collect money each time that toilet gets used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
Try that line of reasoning with the Ninjavideo judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
"Use" is not one of the exclusive rights granted to copyright holders, so no, you're wrong. The owner of a specific copy has rights as to how it is used, but owners are not necessarily the same people as creators, nor vice versa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
Huh, I wasn't aware the movie and music industries were funding these groups. Learn something new every day it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
...Steve Jobs had a nice saying he liked to us. He stole it from Piccaso I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]