Shocker: DOJ's Computer Crimes And Intellectual Property Section Supports Security Researchers DMCA Exemptions
from the say-what-now? dept
Well here's a surprise for you. The DOJ's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) has weighed in to support DMCA 1201 exemptions proposed by computer security researchers. This is... flabbergasting.
In case you don't know, Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is the "anti-circumvention" part of the law. It's the part of the law that makes it infringement to get around any "technological measure" to lock down copyright covered material, even if breaking those locks has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright infringement. It's a horrible law that has created all sorts of negative consequences, including costly and ridiculous lawsuits about things having nothing to do with copyright -- including garage door openers and printer ink cartridges. In fact, Congress knew the law was dumb from the beginning, but rather than dump it entirely as it should have done, a really silly "safety valve" was added in the form of the "triennial review" process.
The triennial review is a process that happens every three years (obviously, per the name), in which anyone can basically beg the Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress to create exemptions for cracking DRM for the next three years (an exemption -- stupidly -- only lasts those three years, meaning people have to keep reapplying). Over the years, this has resulted in lots of silliness, including the famous decision by the Librarian of Congress to not renew an exemption to unlock mobile phones a few years back. Many of the exemption requests come from security researchers who want to be able to crack systems without being accused of copyright infringement -- which happens more frequently than you might think.
Historically, law enforcement has often been against these exemptions, because (in general) they often appear to dislike the fact that security researchers find security flaws. This is, of course, silly, but many like to take a "blame the messenger" approach to security research. That's why this new comment from the DOJ's CCIPS is so... unexpected.
Many of the changes sought in the petition appear likely to promote productive cybersecurity research, and CCIPS supports them, subject to the limitations discussed below.
Incredibly, CCIPS even points out that those who are opposed to these cybersecurity research exemptions are misunderstanding the purpose of 1201, and that it should only be used to stop activity that impacts copyright directly. This is the kind of thing we've been arguing for years, but many companies and government agencies have argued that because 1201 helps them, no exemptions should be granted. But here, the DOJ explains that's not how it works:
Some comments opposing removal of any existing limitation on the security research exemption suggest, implicitly or explicitly, that the DMCA’s security research exemption itself poses a danger merely because it fails to prohibit a type of research to which the commenter objects. However, the purpose of the DMCA is to provide legal protection for technological protection measures, ultimately to protect the exclusive rights protected by copyright. As critically important as the integrity of voting machines or the safety of motorized land vehicles are the American public, the DMCA was not created to protect either interest, and is ill-suited to do so. To the extent such devices now contain copyrighted works protected by technological protection measures, the DMCA serves to protect those embedded works. However, the DMCA is not the sole nor even the primary legal protection preventing malicious tampering with such devices, or otherwise defining the contours of appropriate research. The fact that malicious tampering with certain devices or works could cause serious harm is reason to maintain legal prohibitions against such tampering, but not necessarily to try to mirror all such legal prohibitions within the DMCA’s exemptions.
There's a lot more in the comment, but... I'm actually impressed. Of course, the letter does note that part of the reason it wants this exemption is to enable security researchers to figure out how to crack into encrypted phones, but that's actually a reasonable position for the DOJ to take. Far better than seeking to backdoor encryption. Finding flaws is fair game.
All in all, this is a welcome development, having the DOJ's CCIPS recognize that security research is useful, and that it shouldn't be blocked by nonsense copyright anti-circumvention rules.
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, ccips, computer crimes, copyright, dmca 1201, doj, exemptions, security research, triennial review
Reader Comments
The First Word
“And this is why it needs to be repealed. There is no such exclusive right that necessitates DRM. (There's a reason it's called copy-right and not usage-right.) Here we have the DOJ mistakenly claiming that DRM protects copyright, but also together with it, the very interesting statement that the DMCA provides legal protection for DRM.
Why? Because of what DRM fundamentally is: hacking your computer and turning it against you, making it do things you do not want it to do. If it didn't specifically have the DMCA legitimizing it, it would be as illegal as any other form of computer hacking, and here we have the DOJ coming right out and admitting it.
Well, that's what needs to happen. It's more critical today than ever, in a world of data breaches and private surveillance, with malware abounding and bad actors like Facebook spying on you through your mobile device, that computer owners be able to assert their right of ownership over their own property. As long as DRM is treated as legitimate, we can't do that, and as long as the DMCA remains on the books, DRM remains legitimate.
The DMCA must die.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Don't be mistaken, it's just a small hiccup of sanity, they'll be back to trumpeting (this was intended) bad stuff pretty fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is why it needs to be repealed. There is no such exclusive right that necessitates DRM. (There's a reason it's called copy-right and not usage-right.) Here we have the DOJ mistakenly claiming that DRM protects copyright, but also together with it, the very interesting statement that the DMCA provides legal protection for DRM.
Why? Because of what DRM fundamentally is: hacking your computer and turning it against you, making it do things you do not want it to do. If it didn't specifically have the DMCA legitimizing it, it would be as illegal as any other form of computer hacking, and here we have the DOJ coming right out and admitting it.
Well, that's what needs to happen. It's more critical today than ever, in a world of data breaches and private surveillance, with malware abounding and bad actors like Facebook spying on you through your mobile device, that computer owners be able to assert their right of ownership over their own property. As long as DRM is treated as legitimate, we can't do that, and as long as the DMCA remains on the books, DRM remains legitimate.
The DMCA must die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actlually, DMCA slows pirates from doing what they want:
Just like laws try to prevent alcoholics from hopping into high-powered vehicles and menacing every other person in proximity. -- You should in all instances FIRST blame those acting outside the law, especially when it's stealing content, which is entirely non-necessary. Copyright recognizes exclusive rights of ownership, abstract property rights in the intellectual realm.
You stop far short of the attacks on privacy and persons. Google, for instance, tries to use my computer against me to get every bit of data possible and then track me all over the net. -- And then gives NSA "direct access" to the collated data, according to Snowden.
And of course, any weakening of DMCA will be cheered here because helps pirates, ALWAYS a central goal here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actlually, DMCA trollspirates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actlually, DMCA slows pirates from doing what they want:
DRM is a preemptive measure to try and stop piracy, and hurts those who obey the law more than those who do-not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actlually, DMCA slows pirates from doing what they want:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The central goal of weakening or altering the DMCA, by most anyone with their skin in the game, is to loosen copyright restrictions for the benefit of the public. Most people don’t have the money or the time to fight huge legal battles with megacorps/the government over things like Fair Use and incidental-but-not-intentional copyright infringement. A better DMCA would balance the rights of the copyright holders with the liberties of the general public so that one does not necessarily override the other while remaining fair to both. The notice-and-takedown system changing to notice-and-counternotice would be a good start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actlually, DMCA slows pirates from doing what they want:
Really? I don't remember any particular law mentioning HP statistics. Can you cite sources or are you just being emotional and dramatic?
"You should in all instances FIRST blame those acting outside the law"
Well we do Mr. Straw man.
"Google, for instance"
Dont use google. Next.
"And then gives NSA "direct access" to the collated data"
Still uses AT&T. Next.
"And of course, any weakening of DMCA will be cheered here because helps pirates"
What is and isn't in the DMCA, "pirates" could care less about. They go along doing what they do unhampered by these means. So exactly... How does this in any way help "Pirates?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even that is a misnomer. It's not a right; the temporary monopoly is a privilege granted with some (dubious) expectation of public benefit in return.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell, you don't believe that DMCA should block outright theft!
And that you run this non-surprise as a "shocker" in the key slot shows that your stock of pieces is low and your editorial judgment is lousy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hell, you don't believe that DMCA should block outright theft!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You brought this on yourself by cheering on copyright's overstepping, even on things that other laws adequately cover.
You made your bed with shit and now you're angry because nobody else wants to lie in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, you can't prove a negative, but there's a pretty strong correlation here.
That said: this could have easily been accomplished through something other than the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it is not.
--------------------
"Consider for an example, an ancient map that was created after huge investment in capital and (perhaps) lives. An accurate map, that no one else has yet created. After my investment has cost me my time, my money and perhaps even the lives of my family or compatriots, you want to copy the results of my work for free. "
---------------------
If you want to pursue such a project, it's up to you to figure out how make money on it. Nothing has been taken from you. Just like any other business venture, if you can't figure out how to make money with it, don't do it. Creating criminal penalties to ensure you succeed is not the government's job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Copying is theft!"
"Here is a random story about something being copied."
"Of course copying is theft!"
It's so persuasive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The accusation of Copyright is just the means to an end. Mostly used in what appears to be punishment rather than any protection of copyright.
Wonder how long John T. Lynch will be employed after this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So now I can take over systems and sell exploits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The title of this article confused me for a bit until I realized that the "Shocker" part wasn't being sarcastic. Not sure I've ever seen the word "shocker" used in a non-sarcastic fashion before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happened before this was
Really, was Copy protection REALLY a downhill battle??
NOT for the consumer..Who hardly even knew he could remove that Catalytic converter himself.
And EVEN today, Cracked software is only running about 1-5%..
Circumvention is another BIG word..it can mean those that HACK the game, but NOT crack it..Those that use Other programs to insert DATA while playing games, to give them advantage.
With this Law you have NO RIGHTS to change that Computer that controls your car. To make it better, faster, Anything, EXCEPT the piece of garbage it is..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The twists and turns of the legal system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The twists and turns of the legal system
Of course, we wouldn't have got to this point had Shiva not gone on his personal crusade. Shiva could have continued to peddle the idea that he was the sole inventor of email to unsuspecting fans. But thanks to this lawsuit people get to see the true face of Shiva, Harder, and the whackjob who dreams of magical fairy tiger spirits. Way to go, genius!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The twists and turns of the legal system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The twists and turns of the legal system
But seriously, Trump is soon to get YET ANOTHER SCOTUS pick, and you seriously want to engage in this stupid argument?
The sun is rising tomorrow YET AGAIN, and you seriously want to engage in this stupid argument? Hey, I can draw imaginary parallels between unrelated events too!
The courts decided that based on the "evidence" Shiva chose to present in court they could not definitively say that Shiva did or did not "invent email". Which means Masnick did not definitively defame. How sad for your fantasies. Maybe you should write several consecutive replies to yourself of horrible Melania/Shiva fanfiction. It worked so well the last time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The twists and turns of the legal system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The twists and turns of the legal system
while i understand that you are trying to point to hypothetical defamation law suits getting to the supreme court, and possible negative outcomes. i may also live in an alternate reality.
as i understand it congress defines the law and scotus's job is to interpret the law. not that i think either one necessarily does their job as advertised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference between a conservative and a liberal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
Shiva was able to fund himself, for a time, a heavily charged political campaign in which he encouraged his audience to exact physical violence on his political opponents. If you're that concerned about Shiva, don't be. His self-celebratory empire isn't going anywhere anytime soon. But you already knew that, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
We're merely pointing that fact out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
* his whole "I invented email" schtick (all factual evidence weighs against that claim)
* His claim that those like Techdirt defamed him (Defamation law itself and all facts weigh against the claim)
One malicious action:
Filing a vexatious lawsuit against innocent-of-wronging-him targets with the intent of causing harm to his victims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
“Techdirt defamed him” - wow that’s rich - even I would agree that Techdirt defamed him, and I’m totally unbiased.
A “vexatious lawsuit”? Seriously.
Your argument is completely circular - he’s a liar because he says that I unfairly called him a liar.
The truth of the matter is that there is a mountain of evidence that he is not a liar, or a charlatan, or at all untruthful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
Considering you harangued this website for months - a website that you personally think of as insignificant with a non-existent readership - calling yourself "unbiased" is laughable, Hamilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
If you want facts, read Techdirt's coverage and its copious linked sources. Since you're an obvious troll you're not worth researching for, but here's a sampling from memory:
His claim: That he alone invented the email system withall its major features we all use today
Fact: he wrote a program titled Email (I'm calling it Smail here for short)
Fact: Email as an in-use system existed before Smail
Fact: Whenever Shiva changes his story to include new "unique" core features Smail had, those features are also found to have existed in email before Smail existed, in some cases preceeding Smail by at least a decade.
Determination: that Shiva "invented" any features of email never before seen is false
Determination: that Shiva may at least have a claim of coining the name "Email" is plausible
Fact: Smail resided on a single corporate mainframe, and could not deliver messages to other systems
Determination: That's a messaging system, but nowhere close on capability to the real email either then or now
Fact: Smail spawned no descendents; nobody but his priginal client adopted it
Determination: It's therefore impossible for it to be the same email ubiquitous today
Fact: Ayyadurai's claims have less than zero factual support
Detefinition: Those claims are lies
Determination Ayyadurai tells lies
Definition: He's a liar
Fact: MIT gave him a position for a while, based on his fraudulent "inventor of email" reputation.
Determination: The motivations for Shiva's lying are money and prestige
Umless I misremembered a detail, then the above facts are as so, and the determinations are, obviously, logically formed out of those facts. The determinations, though accurate, are nonetheless opinion, and cannot be considered true or false.
--
By law, defamation requires:
*Harm to plaintiff
*Caused by making an untrue claim of fact
*That the author knew to be false
*That, if made against a public figure, were made with the intent to harm.
If any of the above conditions fail, then it's not defamation.
At best it can be argued that the writings of Techdirt and others can kinda/sorta fall under only the first condition (like any lowdown scum, there's held the fallacious belief that it's the "snitch" that's at fault for one's being caught, rather than the natural consequence of one's own actions)
Not a single proven- untrue fact was written about Ayyadurai by any of his victims. (Notably, Ayyadurai himself in his lawsuit did not contest that any facts victims wrote were false, rather he bizarrely tried to make the impossible-by-definition claim that opinions were false.)
Opinions and conclusions based on disclosed true facts, no matter one's own opinion on how strongly or weakly those opinions are supported by those facts, cannot be defamation, ever, so no amount of whinging and butthurt about mean nasty language carries any weight in a defamation claim.
Techdirt's sources for its information were (and afaik still are) of good and reliable reputation, and there was/is no indication that the information was/is flawed in any way, so even if they had been lying in their info on Shiva that Techdirt incorporated into its writings, there would have been absolutely no reason for Techdirt to have believed so, so a defamation claim fails here too.
Finally, Ayyadurai's feeble attempts to claim that he was somehow not a public figure despite deliberately seeking out the limelight of the undeserved fame of inventing email naturallu fail. And no honest person has or could claim that any of Ayyadurai's critics had any core motivation other than to set the record straight in the face of an onslaught of lies. One Charlatan's revisionist history placing himself at the center of everything is a deep insult to the work of those who, unlike Ayyadurai, actually did contribute to email. Even though this final hurdle to clear is moot after the others, it's still too high of a one to pass for the plaintiff.
Not only did the defamation claim fail, it could not possibly succeed as a matter of law. Because of that, there is also nothing at all for a jury to need to decide.
-As for the vexatious nature of his lawsuit -
Legal proceedings started with malice and without good case. Vexatious litigation is meant to bother, embarrass, or cause legal expenses to the defendant. A plaintiff who starts such litigation either knows or should reasonably know that no legal basis for the lawsuit exists. -Cornell Law
Ayyadurai's own statements say that his goal with this was to silence Techdirt if not by winning then by bleeding it dry from legal expense - an eminently malicious goal that coupled with the lawsuit's complete lack of any supporting fact, law, or merit means it fits the definition of "Vexatious" quite snugly.
-
I expect this to be my final reply, as I've already given your bullshit far more time than it's worth. You haven't yet shown good faith here, so I don't expect you to start now. There are more entertaining trolls I can needle elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
As for the losing business bit, Shiva could afford his own political campaign. If you want to argue Shiva has been losing "business", I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
And if the legal system is whatever SCOTUS says it is, that legal system handed Shiva a declaration that his "invention" cannot be proven. So you got what you wished for, Hamilton!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference between a conservative and a liberal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're slipping, Kimosahbee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Right? Is that a right definition? It is a fucking wrong definition! E-mail is not the exchange of digital messages. That would make Facebook e-mail, it would make every fucking thing e-mail!" - Shiva Ayyadurai, History by Lawsuit
Right, it's not about the definition of email. Snore. This is the point where you start replying to yourself with angry masturbatory messages again, Hamilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]