You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.

October 9, 2003

You Were Joking

This morning, I woke up to this story at kuro5hin: “Keyboard Manufacturers Named in DMCA Suit.” I couldn’t believe it. Could Alex Halderman’s report really have triggered a lawsuit? Could that lawsuit really be about the legality of the shift-key? Rubbing my eyes and reading a little closer, I realized that it was a total joke. I laughed.


That article’s a joke, but this one most certainly isn’t. (via Copyfight)


I’m glad Alex is feeling confident right now, because I’d probably be scared shitless (or at least talking more like SethF). He has some reason to be confident. I don’t see how his paper is a “device”, or how a shift key fits the language of 1201(a)(2).  And his actions likely don’t constitute circumvention if you read the statute sanely, or they fit into an exception, unless of course a judge would like to create some serious First Amendment problems.  Security research is probably our best bet when defending DMCA attacks.


But the fact that we’re even having this discussion is ridiculous. It’s a total joke. Yet I’m not laughing.

* Filed by Derek Slater at 8:02 pm under General news
* 3 Comments

3 Responses to “You Were Joking”

  1. Seth Finkelstein
    October 9th, 2003 | 8:49 pm

    Research papers are arguably technology, not device.

    I’ve just written about this problem with DMCA and speech and code == speech

  2. Seth Finkelstein
    October 9th, 2003 | 8:59 pm

    p>Here’s the
    DeCSS
    case     reference I wanted, footnote #135:

    FN135. In their Post-Trial Brief, defendants argue that “at least some of
    the members of Congress” understood

  3. doogieh
    October 9th, 2003 | 11:18 pm

    Its not the shift key per se, but its the Microsoft automount program that is the circumvention device. This company relies on the automount function as a technological access control measure to ensure application of the DRM libraries to a host computer.

    The automount function includes a pre-existing circumvention method (the shift key) for preventing a CD from autoplaying upon mounting. Now that the automount function is being used as an access control, the circumvention code is now a circumvention device subjected to DMCA considerations when any “technology” related to it — in this case the research paper — is principally related to circumvention of an access control related to a right of the copyright holder.

    Everyone is right, though, that this case will be the test case for DMCA constitutionality, and especially in light of the majority opinion in Eldred (so long as the law remains within the “traditional bounds of copyright law” first amendment analysis is limited). I would chomp at the bit to help work on a case like this — heck I would chomp at the bit to even be sued in a case like this.

    -doogieh