Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Ned Ulbricht — Wed, 09 May 2007 11:38:48 -0000

Jim S,

If you have a specific duty of confidentiality towards me, created by contract, privilege or otherwise, then I decline to waive your duty.

But in the general case, absent a specific duty, then there is simply no remedy against a member of the general public for their publication of a truthful fact.

In the specific case under discussion here, AACS LA, their agents, and others operating under their authority knowingly, willfully and voluntarily published their supposedly "secret" number. They have no right at all to object to the public's discussion of their revealed "secret".

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Jim S — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:03:35 -0000

Ned,

Not to belabor the point, but I'm really curious. Do you think it would be ok (both legally and morally) for me to publish your social security number, bank account number, home address, mother's maiden name, phone number, current prescriptions, medical history, past employment record, and any prior record of incarceration here and elsewhere? All truthful facts? Is that consistent with your interpretation of the first amendment? (I'm not baiting here, I'm just trying to understand your statement above regarding congress' powers).

engima_foundary... good point. It rather obliterates my automobile analogy. I am following my intuition here but when I think of things (especially in the world we live in today) that require me to go get zip tied, I just don't think of DCMA. It seems like a rather tenuous connection to the first amendment.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Ned Ulbricht — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:38:46 -0000

Publishing a truthful fact is not civil disobedience. Not in America.

Civil disobedience is a protest against an unjust law. But Congress simply lacks the power to abridge people's freedom to print truthful facts. Hence, no law broken—and no civil disobedience.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

eee_eff — Wed, 09 May 2007 00:22:35 -0000

Clarify the above post; there = bar for civil disobedience should not be set to low...

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

eee_eff — Wed, 09 May 2007 00:21:02 -0000

Hmmm...well I totally agree there; however the First Amendment and issues of War and Peace (and by extension, discrimination, which is really a form of violence) are ones that are so central to the well-being of society that in those two cases, civil disobedience is required.

Required.

(as in NOT optional.)

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Doug — Tue, 08 May 2007 17:27:06 -0000

Doug, I agree. I was just kind of laughing that at this point this has become an excercise in futility. Good luck and watch out for those little wrist lock zip tie things when you do your DMCA sit in. Wrap your wrists in a few layers of inside out duct tape so the ties don't pinch.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Doug Lay — Tue, 08 May 2007 17:21:31 -0000

Jim:

I think we've reached a point of diminishing returns.

Best wishes.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Jim S — Tue, 08 May 2007 17:13:31 -0000

Doug,

My mistake. I thought it was you offering that as a compromise position. Weren't you suggesting that futile-to-enforce speed limits were ok now that they have been moderately improved and there are no cases remaining in the courts? I should have read your post more carefully.

Personally I still think I should be allowed to go 150 mph on I-95 since I have a vehicle with the means to do it. I simply don't buy the argument that I'm hurting anyone by doing it, they just need to speed up too. I'm beginning to come around to your way of thinking and you are giving me the moral courage to say to hell with Carter's speed limits. I suggest if you still drive slowly, use the right lane.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Doug Lay — Tue, 08 May 2007 16:41:07 -0000

Jim:

I have no idea how anyone could possibly determine that a change in the DMCA could be qualitatively equivalent to a 10mph increase in the speed limit. So no, I can't accept your offer of a compromise position.

I'm also not terribly interested in waiting. I would like to hurry the process along, and civil disobedience that underscores the futility of the law is one way to do so. I am sorry that you don't approve.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Jim S — Tue, 08 May 2007 16:33:55 -0000

Doug,

True, but it has basically nothing to do with the point I was making. This is starting to feel like squeezing a water balloon.

But if you're saying that a change in the DMCA laws that was qualitatively equivilent to a moderate 10mph increase in speed limits, and some passage of time to "age" the DMCA laws like Carter's speed limits, would be sufficient to make you happy with the law and ready to follow it, I think we are all done. Just have to figure out what that little tweak to DMCA would be and then wait.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Doug Lay — Tue, 08 May 2007 16:18:48 -0000

Jim:

Speed limits have been increased in most states in (relatively) recent years, and one reason is that a whole lot of people not only thought they were set too low, but basically refused to obey the lower limit.

I doubt, though, there is a court case anywhere in the country that challenges the constiutionality of speed limits. They have been with us a lot longer than the DMCA.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Jim S — Tue, 08 May 2007 15:55:52 -0000

Doug,

You are misunderstanding my point, I may not have been clear. I didn't say that the Digg episode is a mess (although it will probably turn out to be one for Digg). I was attempting to say that if the bar for civil disobediance is this low in this domain and becomes a norm of public behavior and is applied to other domains, we will find ourselves in the position where everyone with a passionate position on anything decides which laws apply to them. I think that would be a mess. And just to be clear, I'm not arguing a cauality from DRM to other stuff; I'm simply saying that widespread use of civil disobedience for every quitodian cause would be at best a pain in the ass (like strike days in France) and at worse a real mess.

Personally I think speed limits suck and have only reluctantly adhered to them. They hardly strike me as a kind of natural law like "don't kill." I'm sure somewhere in the courts is a case arguing that they are set too low. Until that is settled I think I'll just go as fast as I want, and after it is settled I will still go as fast as I want because it is my inalienable right. You may think that speed limits are a rational limit on my behavior but I say that is just your opinion and need have no bearing on my behavior. Furthermore, if you think my going fast is somehow endangering you I'll just say stop being a dinasaur, find a business model that works, and go fast too.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Doug Lay — Tue, 08 May 2007 15:01:49 -0000

Jim:

What kind of mess gets made when people disobey the DMCA, as happened on Digg last week?

Also, I'd like to state that the scope of the law isn't fully settled. There was one relevant court decision in NY (the 2600 case) about seven years ago, which was upheld by the Second Circuit and never appealed to the Supreme Court. So those of us who feel the law is unconstitutional don't have a firm statement by the Supreme Court telling us we're wrong. The only way to test the constitutionality theory is to have a test case.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Jim S — Tue, 08 May 2007 14:23:52 -0000

Ok... well, I was a little bit hesitant to use the auto analogy because it is a bit remote (and I am not surprised that it didn't sway your pov; it is clear that your pov is pretty firmly established). However, I do still think there is a connection. At the heart of regulations like the ones on how I can use my car is the idea that government regulates use for the good of all participants. You might not remember how pissed off people were about catalytic converters and mandatory seatblet use?

What we seem to be arguing about is whether the subverting of a DRM mechanism harms anyone or not (like if I remove the catalytic converter from my car) and whether you have some fundamental inalienable right to use a device that you own in any way you see fit. I don't believe that their is any such inalienable right, though I think it is a desirable state when it comes to the impact of DRM on personal computing and similar devices.

If by "really important stuff" you mean important enough for civil disobedience, then I really disagree. That's a pretty low bar for civil disobedience and if everyone with a similar level of passion about something has a similarly low threshhold for invoking civil disobedience it's gonna get messy out there (although the people still protesting mandatory seat belt use would probably prune their own ranks pretty quickly).

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Doug Lay — Tue, 08 May 2007 14:23:34 -0000

On the issue of civil disobedience, let me throw one more piece of info out there. Over at the University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog, Professor Randy Picker (a DMCA backer) has reviewed Thoreau's oiginal essay on Civil Disobedience, and found that Thoreau did NOT consider the Boston Tea Party to be a legitimate example of civil disobedience. After all, if the colonists didn't like the taxes on imported goods, they could simply have done without the goods. Hmmmm...sound like a familiar argument? So, reasonable people can disagree about this stuff.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Doug Lay — Tue, 08 May 2007 13:42:36 -0000

Jim:

I don't find any of your car analogies very convincing. None of the restrictions you mention on modifying the car take effect until you take the car out and start driving it around, off your property. The DMCA restricts what I can do in the privacy of my own home. Moreover, it restricts the dissemination of knowledge. There's nothing illegal about Web sites that tell you how to remove a catalytic converter - it's only illegal when you actually remove it and start driving around.

I humbly suggest that the right of citizens to program their own computers as they see fit is really important stuff. I respect your right to disagree.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Jim S — Tue, 08 May 2007 13:24:00 -0000

Doug,

Yep, I absolutely agree with you exept for one thing; you paid for the device fair and square knowing full well what restrictions there were (others might not understand those restrictions, but you certainly did) when you bought it.

To the degree that this argument is similar to the arguments of the FSF on free software I agree as far as it goes to say that free software is good, I just don't go so far to say that it is some kind of first principal fundamental right. How can there be a fundamental human right to something that has only existed for half a century at most? Maybe I'll feel differently about it someday but I think fundamental rights are a pretty elite group.

I bought a car fair and square with a "license" that says if I modify it the warranty is null and void. Not only that, but even if I choose to ignore that and let my warranty lapse, the government has all kinds of things to say about what modifications I can or cannot make to the car I paid my money for (don't remove that catalytic converter!) to drive it on the streets that I paid for with my taxes. And even if I don't modify it all I am still restricted in how and where I operate it. In fact, it has a governer on it that will not permit me to go above a particular (illegal) speed that it would otherwise be very capable of achieving, and it is unlawful for me to remove it or make it inoperable.

The point is that we buy things all the time that have restrictions on use. If the restrictions are too severe (like that damned "feature" that requires my foot to be on the clutch to start my car) either don't buy it or work to get the regulation that requires it changed. But I humbly suggest that we save the civil disobedience for the really important stuff.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Doug Lay — Tue, 08 May 2007 12:20:02 -0000

Jim:

It's not the use of DRM itself that raises a fundamental rights question. The problem is the DMCA anti-circumvention provision, which aims to protect DRM systems from hacking but in the process makes it illegal for me, as a software engineer, to implement certain functionality on my computer. AACS is not just resident on DVDs - there's also logic on the playback device, implemented in code or circuitry. That logic has been placed off-limits to me as a citizen by the DMCA. I can't implement it, I can't change it, and in some ways I can't even talk about it, even though it's all resident on a machine I paid for fair and square.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Jim S — Tue, 08 May 2007 11:31:16 -0000

It seems to me like something is getting lost here. Posting a number, even a number that happens to mean something else in another context, is one thing, but posting it with its meaning when it's meaning is protected is another.

If I post "345 54 8902" with no supporting text it's no big deal. But if I post it as so-and-so's social security number alongside their address (just another number) it does matter. If it were your SSN I was posting with your address I suspect you would not be so quick to see it as my right of free speech being excercised (or maybe you are a true believer and would be ok with it).

So it isn't really honest to say "it's just a number" if it is posted as a mechanism for assisting someone with either breaking copyright or related law.

By the way, I submit that you do have complete control over your computer Doug. You are not being coerced by anyone into placing a CD or DVD in it; you are making a choice that is informed by the license printed right on the thing. If enough people were to make the choice not to purchase content that had DRM on it, it would go away.

I find DRM to be not only irritating but downright insidious in the way it is implemented and I don't buy Sony products because of that damned root kit; I just don't see the presence or absence of DRM on my content purchases as a fundamental "rights" question of the kind dealt with by our constitution.

Interesting conversation though; it is definitely making me think and I appreciate that.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

eee_eff — Mon, 07 May 2007 20:21:42 -0000

And I for one throw the BS flag on your "I'm just like Gary Kasparov" assertion. Give me a break! He is a truly inspiring individual, but I doubt he would agree your efforts are really in the same league.

I was not trying to put myself in his league (I have never had a rating over 1900) but to indicate that I was inspired by him to stick my neck out a little bit.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Doug Lay — Mon, 07 May 2007 13:33:08 -0000

Mark:

I think enigma or most anyone else on this board could easily obtain "Legally Blond 2" or any other DVD you care to mention, and copy if for all of their friends, for little more than the cost of a blank DVD, with a possibility of getting caught that approaches zero. Shoot, I'll bet you could even do that yourself. All that's stopping us is our consciences. Certainly DRM isn't stopping us.

It is premature to compare the anti-DMCA revolt to the Boston Tea Party or other such milestones in the history of standing up to arbitrary and unjust law. But this is about a lot more than watching DVDs. It's really about whether citizens are going to be allowed to control their own computers.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

eee_eff — Mon, 07 May 2007 13:24:48 -0000

If you really cared about Free Speech you would be in Egypt protesting the government's detainment of bloggers. You would be in front of Congress protesting every time they bring up aspects of the Patriot Act. Heck I would even respect you more if you were in front of the offices of Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft protesting their relationships with the Chinese government. But instead you're spending your time complaining about the fact you can't make free copies of Legally Blond 2 for all your friends...I'm sorry, but Mr. Kasparov would not be proud.

I rather think you are mis-charaterizing my objection to the DMCA. I do in fact criticize the Chinese government in several posts on my blog, see particular the post titled "Free Press Famines and Disease Outbreaks," "A Public Health Threat in China Glossed Over (Again)" as well as my guest post over at Freedom to Tinker (21st Century Data Harvesting: Syndromic Surveillence)

I do not agree that I shouuld be able to make a copy of any movie, least of all the one you cite which is not my taste in Movies at all.

I object to someone, however saying that I cannot write certain code or post a certain number. DRM cannot tread on the First Amendment.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Mark Blafkin — Mon, 07 May 2007 11:21:14 -0000

Enigma said "digg took a courageous stand, just like 2600 did in the linking to de CSS."

Not really. I'll give you 2600. They were a tiny little hacker pub that stood on principle. Digg, on the other hand, did nothing of the sort. Digg was merely coerced by the activist member base. They had a choice to kill the company on the spot (members threatened to leave the site if the company didn't bow to their demands) or buy a few months and fight it out in court. Like any sensible business, they chose to buy themselves a few months.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Mike Sullivan — Mon, 07 May 2007 02:30:31 -0000

Just for what it's worth, my bicycle lock combination shows 6,770,000 results on Google. Can I sue (I use the term herein to mean legitimately, not merely file a suit) all those people under the DMCA? Hell, no. If the AACS group used 1234567890 as its key could it sue everyone merely expressing those digits online? Hell, no.

I can use a GUID generator on the web (http://www.famkruithof.net/... to generate what purports to be a unique number: 0cc41a96-fc60-11db-8314-0800200c9a66. Can I sue someone who includes this number in an online posting? No.

If I were to use that number as an encryption key for copyrighted content but didn't tell everyone what it was, could I sue everyone who posts that number? No.

But under the DMCA I probably could sue everyone who posts that number specifically as the key to my copyrighted content (and my licensees could probably sue to protect their copyrighted content).

To the extent the AACS group go after the people who simply ape the number, they have essentially no case; they should have to be shown specific intent to circumvent copyright protection.
The DMCA applies to all encryption technologies used to protect copyrighted content. I have used double ROT-13 encryption to protect all of the foregoing content. Accordingly, if you have viewed any of that content (other than as permitted by the license below), or told anyone how to view it, you have circumvented my copyright.

The foreging is © 2007 Michael Sullivan; all rights reserved. Permission granted for posting on www.techliberation.com as a response to "The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party". By reading this post you agree that you will not defeat the copy protection scheme pursuant to which it was posted. You agree to be sued in the District of Columbia for any violation thereof; to confess error; and to pay $1,000,000,000,000.00 in liquidated damages for each violation.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

eee_eff — Mon, 07 May 2007 00:26:20 -0000

Cord said:

Certainly Marxism, or a very watered-down version of Marxism, only enters into it if we bring the issue of DRM back into the argument.

Absolute rubbish!

Opposition to DRM is much, much broader and deeper than that!

I saw Richard Stallman give a talk at University of Missouri, Saint Louis the other day. Standing room only crowd.

His remarks against DRM got quite a bit of applause.

Having been a long time resident of Saint Louis I can speak with authority that the University of Missouri student demographic includes very very few Marxists!

Only a few, living in their insulated worlds, still believe DRM will be around five years from now.

This is the beginning of the end, for DRM.