By Declan McCullagh, 13 May 2004 08:35
NEWS The US Congress has taken a step toward revising the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in a move which the entertainment industry has branded an attempt to "legalise hacking".
A House of Representatives subcommittee convened on Wednesday for the first hearing devoted to a proposal to change the DMCA, a 1998 law that broadly restricts bypassing copy-protection technologies used in DVDs, a few music CDs and some software programs.
Called the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, the amendments are backed by librarians, liberal consumer groups and some technology firms. But they're bitterly opposed by the entertainment industry, including Hollywood, major record labels and the Business Software Alliance.
Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the proposed changes: "It legalises hacking. It allows you to make a copy or many copies, and the 1000th copy of a DVD, Mr. Chairman, is as pure and pristine as the original. You strip away all the protective clothing of that DVD and leave it naked and alone."
Section 1201 of the DMCA drew fire after it was used to outlaw a utility permitting Linux users to watch their own DVDs, as well as threaten security researchers with lawsuits. Programmer Dmitry Sklyarov was charged under the DMCA for writing a program that let owners of Adobe e-books export them to Portable Document Format (PDF) files.
The proposed amendments, sponsored by Rick Boucher, D-Va, and John Doolittle, R-Calif., would permit circumvention for "fair use" purposes. Selling pirated DVDs and other forms of copyright infringement would remain illegal.
Declan McCullagh writes for News.com
Comments
There are 6 comments. Join the discussion
1. Doug K.
Why word it that the US is considering "legalising hacking"?? This is purely the industry view and kills any view that you are objective in the matter. It has been determined time and again that I have a right to make backups of material that I have purchased. Whether it is digital or paper. The DMCA artifically removed this right and Congress wishes to fix the problem. I applaud them for working to make sure that I a not a criminal because I want to make a backup copy or wish to view my media on a hardware platform of my choice. The DMCA is akin to saying that I may only read a paper printed the paper of a publisher industry groups choice because they wrap it in a plastic bag and a rubber band.
2. Angus Doyle
Doug -
Hacking is defined as "To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization".
And technically a song on a cd is a file, and the copy protection on the CD's is also classed as a file or program. Therefore a ruling allowing users to bypass this security measure is indeed hacking, granted only a little White Hat hacking.
3. Doug K
Angus
As I am sure you know there are many definitions of hacking and hacking does not purely apply to digital media. Hacking, under many definitions, is totally legal. But that is another argument.
In the case of digital media I have 'purchased' it. I use software or hardware to access it. The problem here is that I am being forced to use the media creators, or their representatives, software/hardware to access the media that I have already been authorized (another point, prove to me that you are authorized to access your CD. Where is your legal and binding contract?) and become a criminal if I wish to use my own. I am not saying that I should be allowed to copy media that someone else has purchased, that is stealing. I am saying that I should have a right, which I had until DMCA came out, to make backup copies of media that I own and play/access it with the hardware and/or software of my choice. The RIAA says that I am hacking if I make a backup copy of my CD. I say I am exercising my fair use rights. The article title takes the RIAA's view completely. If it was taking mine it would have said,"US considers returning 'Fair use rights' to consumers." I would have probably been unhappy with this also. Again, my argument that it is not objective. How about "US considers 'fair use' vs 'hacking' rights." This is a much better title, is objective in that it is not actively promoting one view and is still controversial enough to get readers to read it.
4. Russell McOrmond
We are talking about excercising and protecting our right as citizens to own property. This is not about cracking legitimate security any more than fixing our car to ensure that we can make a right-turn without the permission of the car manufacturer would be cracking.
The USA's DMCA is not a protection of legitimate copyright rights, but an infringement of property rights.
It is about time that people recognized that *we the people* are the rights holders, and that translated to Valenti's type of language that "Digital Rights Management is Theft".
5. Major Tom
This isn't Hacking. Its Social Enginering, Its Cracking, Its Exortion and Blackmail in the right situation. Where does the lieniency end? Does it interfere with the Patriot Act? Can the squabble that will fester from this, plague the Patriot Act? Can hackers who break into software and get away with it, have the same "out" when they hit banks and other institutions such as Power Grids, Airports and other critical infrastructure? Where does the little line in the sand end and a Trench begin?
The trouble with making policies less strict makes people want to see how far they can stretch that rubber band, and get away with it.
So Its strict. GOOD. Make examples out of the first few hundred that perform an "illegal" act and then guess what. No one will want to judge or try the same thing. 'Magine that.
Making something OK to strip out a protective layer is like saying its OK to have a bank account without a PIN. The protection is there in some part to keep out malicious items from being introduced to items that can be copied in mass, and have a world e-plague sometime in the future. Its only a matter of time before the malicious side scores a strike that will affect us all. We've been lucky....so Far.
Become wishy-washy on policies that are written in stone, mind as well be written on a dry marker board, so we can change day to day. No one other than the wanna be corrupt benefit from this. We spend the American Dollar in court making up our minds, while the Copyright breaker reaps in the American Dollar on illegal activity and gets rich off the procrastination and indecision of our courts.
Sad but True.
6. Doug K
Major Tom
Since I guess you are considering me an illegal abuser of copyright for excercising my 'fair use' rights then how am I getting rich again by making a backup copy or watching on the hardware software of my choice? If you know the way please let me know. Also explain how I am destroying the fabric of our society by exercising my rights of ownership? In America one of the great things about our society is that we can privately own things and do what we wish, for the most part, with them. Are you saying that someone else should own everything and that anything I own others should tell me how to use. I don't think you allow that in your own life so lets not be hypocritical.