Digital Millennium Copyright Act | ARTS & FARCES internet | Page 2 us digital millennium copyright act bypass

Tag Archives | Digital Millennium Copyright Act Hack your tractors Published on Saturday, 7 November 2015 4:38 PM CDT by Michael Fraase filed under Intellectual property

Every three years in the US, the Librarian of Congress considers proposals for exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and issues new rules if necessary. Late last month, David Mao published an order (.pdf; 590KB) that authorizes individuals to modify the software in their vehicles for both “good-faith security research” and “lawful modification.” The order applies to both personal and commercial vehicles (cars and trucks) as well as mechanized agricultural vehicles, like tractors.

The “good faith security research” modifier is clearly defined:

“For purposes of this exemption, ‘good-faith security research’ means accessing a computer program solely for purposes of good-faith testing, investigation and/or correction of a security flaw or vulnerability, where such activity is carried out in a controlled environment designed to avoid any harm to individuals or the public, and where the information derived from the activity is used primarily to promote the security or safety of the class of devices or machines on which the computer program operates, or those who use such devices or machines, and is not used or maintained in a manner that facilitates copyright infringement.”

As is the “lawful modification” bit:

“Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a motorized land vehicle such as a personal automobile, commercial motor vehicle, or mechanized agricultural vehicle, except for computer programs primarily designed for the control of telematics or entertainment systems for such vehicle, when circumvention is a necessary step undertaken by the authorized owner of the vehicle to allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful modification of a vehicle function; and where such circumvention does not constitute a violation of applicable law, including without limitation regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation or the Environmental Protection Agency; and pr us-digital-millennium-copyright-act-bypass-rid-0.html. discount moncler mens jacketsovided, however, that such circumvention is initiated no earlier than 12 months after the effective date of this regulation.”

The vehicle software tinkering exemption was proposed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in February 2015 and opposed by the automobile and agricultural vehicle manufacturers.

The order forbids modifying software that controls “telematics or entertainment systems” and will not become law for at least another year.

Report an error... Do you own that new car? Really? Published on Saturday, 25 April 2015 7:28 PM CDT by Michael Fraase filed under Intellectual property

Once upon a time, when you tottered down to your local Chevy dealer, wrote a big check, and drove off in that new Impala, you actually owned the automobile. Same process if you were a farmer and the deal was struck with the local tractor dealer. That shiny new tractor was yours, no question.

That was then, this is now.

General Motors and John Deere are asserting that we do not, in fact, own the car or tractor we’ve just purchased. Instead, we’ve purchased “an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle.”

These manufacturers (and others) have filed responses with the US Copyright Office to its inquiry into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), specifically Section 1201 of the DMCA covering anti-circumvention . Come July, the Copyright Office will decide which of the devices we’ve purchased we’ll be able to repair, modify, and hack.

The basic claim by these manufacturers is that they exclusively own and hold rights to the underlying code that makes these devices operable. While this seems surely to be an unintended consequence of the already dismal DMCA , no one knows how this is going to shake out. General Motors claims in its filing (.pdf; 1101.8KB) that its customers and intellectual property reform activists “conflate ownership of a vehicle with ownership of the underlying computer software in a vehicle.”

John Deere, for its part, notes in its filing (.pdf; 475.2KB) that allowing farmers to repair, modify, or hack their tractors would “make it possible for pirates, third-party developers, and less innovative competitors to free-ride off the creativity, unique expression and ingenuity of vehicle software.”

Kyle Wiens writing for Wired reports that General Motors asserts that preventing its customers from repairing or modifying their vehicles actually helps innovation. Wiens, a founding member of the Digital Right to Repair Coalition , goes on to report that John Deere is so serious about protecting its intellectual property that it actually locked the .pdf it filed with the Copyright Office.

Continue Reading →

Report an error... Doctorow rejoins EFF to work on eliminating DRM Published on Saturday, 24 January 2015 7:30 PM CDT by Michael Fraase filed under Intellectual property

Cory Doctorow, who has to be the hardest working person on the internet, has rejoined the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to continue his work against the pervasive use of digital rights management (DRM) in online content. DRM threatens users’ security and privacy, distorts markets, confiscates public rights, and undermines innovation, according to the EFF. Doctorow will be a special consultant to the EFF’s Apollo 1201 Project (a Doctorow-developed project) with the primary mission of eradicating DRM in our lifetime, referring to Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Doctorow has worked against DRM since its inception and is most widely known for Doctorow’s Law of DRM:

“Anytime someone puts a lock on something you own, against your wishes, and doesn’t give you the key, they’re not doing it for your benefit.”

“We’ve seen DRM misused again and again, whether it’s to thwart competition in printer-ink cartridges, to prevent videogame fans from modifying their consoles, or to block consumers from reading the parts’ specifications on their own cars,” said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry in a media release. “Cory has an unparalleled ability to show the public how bad copyright policy tramples on everyone’s rights.”

“No matter how noble your cause, you can’t advance it by insisting that computers everywhere be equipped with spyware to stop people from running the ‘wrong’ code,” said Doctorow in a media release. “The bad guys will still figure out how to run that code, and everyone else will end up with critical infrastructure that, by design, treats them as untrustable attackers and, by design, lets remote parties covertly seize control of the computers around them. We all deserve a better future—one without DRM.”

Report an error... Music publishers open Pandora’s box Published on Monday, 1 December 2014 6:47 AM CDT by Michael Fraase filed under Intellectual property

Music publishers BMG Rights Management and Round Hill Music have filed a copyright infringement lawsuit (.pdf; 2.3MB) against last-mile internet service provider Cox Communications. Almost certainly, this is a last-ditch attempt by Rightscorp, Inc. — a copyright enforcement company that attempts to strong-arm alleged copyright infringers into settlements — to survive. Rightscorp has lost more than US$6.5 million — US$2.2 million last year alone — since it was founded six years ago. Recently, a class action lawsuit was filed against Rightscorp for using robocalls to extort its targets.

Rightscorp has perennially threatened last-mile internet service providers with lawsuits if they don’t act as its stooges, passing along the former’s settlement demands to the latter’s customers. Rightscorp’s business model is simple extortion: It demands a sum of money from individuals suspected of infringing its clients’ copyrights. To obtain the identity of the alleged infringer, Rightscorp is legally required to secure a subpoena. It attempts to bypass this requirement by strong-arming the service providers into being stooges and ratting out their own US$100 per month or more customers. Most of the large last-mile internet service providers have refused to play this role.

Late last week, Joe Mullin broke the story for Ars Technica , noting that legal precedent for holding a last-mile internet service provider responsible for the actions of its customers is weak at best. Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requires online service providers to block access to material alleged to infringe a copyright (and to remove any alleged infringing material from their systems) when notified by the copyright holder or agent. But Title II also provides online service providers safe harbor for meeting the blocking/removal requirements and a counter-notification provision when customers claim the material is not infringing. While the DMCA safe harbor provisions require that providers terminate the accounts of “repeat infringers” in “appropriate circumstances,” neither of these terms have been clearly defined. To date, the courts have avoided placing undue burden on providers.

Continue Reading →

Report an error... Using copyright to protect us from ourselves Published on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 6:17 AM CDT by Michael Fraase filed under Intellectual property

As I’ve written previously , Massachusetts has a “right to repair” law requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to use a standard, open interface for accessing service data and to sell tools and technical documentation at fair prices. Last January, several automobile lobbying organizations announced a memorandum of understanding in support of “right to repair” at the US national level. But it’s not the same as law, carries almost no weight, and not one of the automobile manufacturers has endorsed it.

Buckle up, kids, it gets worse.

Not only do the automobile manufacturers not want you to know how to fix your car, they don’t want to know about the potentially lethal defects in your car either.

Siobhan Hughes writing for the Wall Street Journal ($$) reports that automobile manufacturers are afforded extraordinary levels of privacy in reporting defects. When an automobile manufacturer becomes aware of a defect — and especially when it discovers how to fix it — it issues a technical service bulletin (TSB) privately to its dealer network describing the problem and the fix. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) receives all of the TSBs under private cover which it compiles in its private database.

So, defects like the widespread General Motors (GM) ignition switch recall get scant initial attention because the TSBs are private and not available to anyone except dealers and the NHTSA (who apparently does nothing but file it).

Why are the TSBs private? The automobile manufacturers claim copyright on the documents. And apparently use them as something of a profit center, licensing the material to third parties who will only too gladly sell them to you by subscription. The material is also available at a lower cost from the NHTSA, but each TSB must be ordered separately.

Hughes cites an auto manufacturer lobbyist as saying “the bulletins are copyrighted, and technical communications that aren’t aimed at the consumer, but rather trained service technicians and service advisers who do the work.” Right, the industry is just trying to protect us from ourselves, you see; pooh… technical communications .

In a 2012 reauthorization bill, Congress required the US Transportation Department to publish all of the automobile manufacturers “communications to dealers” about defects. Hughes reports that under its interpretation of the law, the NHTSA doesn’t require publication “until the problem has technically been classified as a ‘safety defect.” Because copyright. Hughes notes that the GM ignition switch defect TSBs — after at least 13 deaths (and probably more) still haven’t been published.

Report an error... WordPress fights bogus DMCA takedowns Published on Friday, 20 June 2014 7:07 AM CDT by Michael Fraase filed under Censorship

The takedown provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) — whereby a copyright owner is allowed to submit a good faith statement that the use of infringing material is not authorized and have it removed — was never meant to be a censorship bludgeon, but that’s precisely the purpose for which it’s being regularly used. Those offended by the statements of others regularly issue bogus DMCA takedown notices in hopes of having the offending material removed. As Gibson said , “the street finds its own use for things,” and not always in a good way.

In exchange for cooperating with legitimate DMCA takedown efforts, internet service providers are protected under the DMCA’s safe-harbor provision . But failing to comply with a legitimate DMCA takedown notice results in an automatic revocation of this safe-harbor protection. So, most internet service providers tend to takedown first and ask questions later, if ever.

Finally, Automattic — the company most closely associated with the WordPress content management system and the WordPress.com hosting service — has had enough with these bogus DMCA takedown notices that take up a lot of resources unnecessarily. Last November, WordPress decided the best way to deal with this fraudulent activity was to hit the fraudsters where it matters most — the wallet. The company collaborated with a student journalist to bring a lawsuit in California seeking to be compensated for damages caused by the fraudulent DMCA takedown notice.

Predictably, Ernesto Van Der Sar writing for TorrentFreak reports that the would-be censor filing the bogus DMCA takedown notice failed to respond to the legal action, so WordPress and the student journalist are requesting a default judgment, US$10,000 in damages, and US$14,520 in attorneys’ fees.

Report an error... ← Previous 1 2 3 … 8 Next →
us digital millennium copyright act bypass

moncler mens size chart
complaint letter to hr
fake moncler baby snowsuit
outlet moncler italy
saks moncler Digital Millennium Copyright Act The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Blurred Lines

Write here your first thoughts about Digital Millennium Copyright Act ...
03 May 2017     06:30 The new Digital Millennium Copyright Act is one of the first of its kind, and will ensure royalties under statute for the recording industry 02 May 2017     08:02 kill the digital millennium copyright act. It's slavery by any other names 02 May 2017     01:29 Bing makes updates to copyright and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) content removal process. 01 May 2017     10:15 In 1,000 years, when paper money is a distant memory, how will we pay for goods and services?. Act 03 Dec 2016     07:42 hey 2016 if we're still killing things maybe kill the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Thanks 03 Dec 2016     01:30 "This is madness." "No, THIS IS *Getting your hard work struck down by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act*!" 30 Nov 2016     07:42 I'd take back that false DMCA. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is not a tool for responding to online trash talk. 02 Oct 2016     15:55 What do the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and family law have to do with each other? . Nothing, absolute… 29 Sep 2016     14:10 America's broken digital copyright law is about to be challenged in court 29 Sep 2016     02:13 creators must urge Congress to reform the Digital Millennium Act to prevent Google from... 29 Sep 2016     00:21 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, some thing companies can file if they think you've stolen their content I think. 28 Sep 2016     20:10 TechSmith is not in a position to retract its claim that your content is in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 28 Sep 2016     12:52 He's just upset about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provision in the TPP. 28 Sep 2016     01:10 As well as the strict copyright law would’t progress so the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 27 Sep 2016     14:17 Safe harbours - the digital millennium copyright act with Simon Jordan of Russels 26 Sep 2016     17:43 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, All sports leagues are hammering people for it. 26 Sep 2016     11:33 What you should know about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act: 26 Sep 2016     09:53 It was so nice to stumble upon this article from July about the taking on DRM. . 24 Sep 2016     15:40 Ugh. Spending the morning cuddled up with the digital millennium copyright act because of a client trying not to pay me. Stay tuned. 23 Sep 2016     22:59 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I failed to make the Coors back from Texarkana before Buford Justice caught me :P 23 Sep 2016     22:15 It'll soon be legal to hack your Tesla (or any other car) in the US under The Millennium Digital Copyright Act. 22 Jul 2016     16:27 A federal lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) h… 23 Jun 2016     00:12 Dear Congress: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is broken and no longer works for creators. 10 Jun 2016     20:56 Internet Archive issues stern warning over proposed change to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 13 Mar 2016     07:23 And I have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in my favor 11 Mar 2016     23:23 DMCA:      If I had my way, the heads of all the legislators that passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ... 17 Dec 2015     22:21 Hopefully this verdict improves ISP compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 17 Dec 2015     18:45 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (notice — a kind of legal threat that demands the offending media be removed. 17 Dec 2015     05:07 I wonder how many times you have read the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)? My guess: 0 15 Dec 2015     23:02 TREND has implemented the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Takedown Notice and Procedure. Learn more: 13 Dec 2015     21:12 If what you need is context on what the DMCA is, why I care, why you should care, and what we did, watch this video. 12 Dec 2015     12:58 Trademark is not copyright. Patent is not trademark. . The Digital Millennium *Copyright* Act only applies to one thing. 11 Dec 2015     22:42 Sext: I filled up more than a page of my law paper with summary of a small chunk of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 11 Dec 2015     20:28 .Under Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we demand you take down our copyrighted content. 11 Dec 2015     18:52 Digital Millennium Falcon Copyright Act in action -> 09 Nov 2015     23:18 "This file is no longer available due to a takedown request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by Sony Music Entertainment"

Digital Millennium Copyright Act(
\n