Judge rules that circumventing DRM is not illegal
In what will surely become a landmark case -- or at least a massive thorn in the MPAA and RIAA's clubbed, pygmy feet -- a judge has ruled that bypassing DRM via hacking, reverse engineering or any other means is not in itself illegal. The case itself ruled that General Electric, in using hacked security dongles to repair some uninterruptible power supplies produced by another company, did not violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Why? Because the end goal was legal. If the hacked dongles had been used for the forces of evil, the story would be different.
While this doesn't sound immediately applicable to DRM-protected software, music and movies, bear in mind that the DMCA is the foundation for every spurious copyright claim made by RIAA, MPAA and the myriad of other digital rights groups. In essence, this ruling means that you're free to break DRM on media that you own. No longer is it illegal to rip your own DVDs or crippled audio CDs onto your hard disk. I think there might also be some implication for the godawful DRM used on contemporary games like Assassin's Creed 2 (and if you're a lawyer, please leave a comment!)
In case you were wondering, this doesn't make piracy legal. It just means that bypassing DRM to reach a legal goal -- i.e. fair use of things you own -- is now protected by common law.
[via electronista]
The Illusionist's Dream is a simple platformer; you play as a magician who needs to get through each level by transforming into any number of animals that you encounter along the way.
Each animal can do different things; the butterfly can obviously fly, but if it encounters a frog, the frog eats it, and you have to start over again. There's also a fox that runs fast and leaps far, but it eats any rabbits that cross its path. That means that, if you may need to be a rabbit later on, you need to take that into account ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
216 said 8:25AM on 7-26-2010
See sometimes the system works in our favor
Reply
Sebastian Anthony said 8:32AM on 7-26-2010
The RIAA forgot to pay off just a single judge... and this is what happens!
5hRreDDy said 8:31AM on 7-26-2010
Hmm, almost sounds too good to be true.
Reply
BigE said 12:33PM on 7-26-2010
It is basically, the 5th Circuit isn't exactly the authority on Copyright issues, until the 2nd or 9th Circuit rules on the issue this doesn't change much.
mmm...sandwich... said 8:40AM on 7-26-2010
Any "protection under common law" is only applicable to residents of TX, LA, and MS. Other circuits are not bound by this precedent. Unless you live or are sued in those three states, there is no color of law protecting you.
Reply
Sebastian Anthony said 8:48AM on 7-26-2010
Darn... well... we have no federalised states in England!
Maarten said 8:44AM on 7-26-2010
Bear in mind that this is the first court to reach this conclusion. It is by no means certain that other Circuit Courts would go along with this reading of the law.
There are separate provision in the DMCA for fair use and the Librarian of Congress has the authority to create exceptions to the ban on circumvention for specific technologies or purposes. It seems like this ruling would create another exception. The extent of the ruling isn't exactly clear (it seems to revolve around very specific circumstances.) So I'm not sure that you can say that you are now permitted to circumvent DRM to media you own. But I don't think that's gonna stop anyone reading this website from changes their evil ways :-)
Also note that the DMCA has a number of elements to it, on of which is the Anti-Circumvention statute, which is included in accordance with international law. Another part of the DMCA is the notice-and-takedown procedure that you refer to in the article, which was not at issue in this case.
Also in the DMCA? Protection for the shapes of vessel hulls... I kid you not.
Reply
Sebastian Anthony said 8:48AM on 7-26-2010
Ah! Someone who knows his stuff!
I was just thinking that, in some cases, you get a cease/desist letter for downloading a movie via BitTorrent. If you already own that movie (on DVD, or whatever), then that's fair use.
I figured, with this ruling, that RIAA/MPAA/etc won't be so eager to send letters now that 'fair use' has a bit of a legal precedent :)
Maarten said 8:58AM on 7-26-2010
@Sebastian: :-) Yeah, you would think so... and actually MPAA & RIAA have stopped suing individuals, haven't they?
However, something like that has never been legal in the US. (In some European countries you are allowed to make a personal copy of works for yourself, but uploading (i.e. seeding) is still illegal.)
What you're describing is a straight up violation of plain vanilla copyright: thou shalt not copy another's work. Even if you own a work, you are not allowed to make copies, unfortunately. But again, that's not gonna stop any readers of this blog from changing their evil ways :-)
Fred said 9:17AM on 7-26-2010
actually, Maarten, that's not true. In the US, fair use laws (U.S.C Section 107) allow you to back up your media, legally, for your own purposes. So I can legally make backup copies of CDs, so long as those backups are for ME. The only reason you cannot legally backup DVDs is because they are encrypted, and the DMCA purportedly made the circumvention of that encryption illegal.
Maarten said 9:27AM on 7-26-2010
@Fred: I was thinking about that after I posted my reply. I wasn't sure if the right to backup is actually established through case law, but it definitely fits the fair use analysis. In may European countries, copyright statutes grant you a private copy exception or an explicit grant that allows for one backup copy.
However, in the context of this discussion (DRM) either breaking the copy-protection, or *downloading* a backup copy are both illegal, correct?
Fred said 9:52AM on 7-26-2010
@ Maarten. Correct. Downloading it is illegal because you are not paying for something, and by downloading it, are essentially making an unauthorized copy. Straight copyright law, no DRM or DMCA implications for the most part. The Copying from DVD to file by the uploader is illegal because of the DRM-breaking involved + illegal distribution..
R.Dee said 8:44AM on 7-26-2010
It never was illegal, if you actually ever read the US Code, Title 17 Chapter 12 (f)
(f) Reverse Engineering. — (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
Reply
Sebastian Anthony said 8:46AM on 7-26-2010
Yeah, I know -- from when I used to read Slashdot religiously, we always hung on to that Reverse Engineering clause :)
Still... didn't stop those DVD-decryption guys from being shut down :(
Alex Thurgate said 8:59AM on 7-26-2010
Hmm, interesting to see how it will effect the hurt locker 14,000 people lawsuit!! On a completely different thing, seb do you use a seedbox to d/l torrents?
Reply
NerdUno said 9:01AM on 7-26-2010
You will note that the winner in this particular case was a very large corporation, not an individual. Hence... YMMV!
Reply
Fred said 9:13AM on 7-26-2010
As a side note, it probably does not apply to video games, because you agree not to hack the software when you agree to the EULA. Since this is a simple contract and not a DMCA issue, it has no effect there.
But in terms of DVDs, it could be significant. Here's hoping MGE Systems appeals and a higher court affirms.
Reply
sRc said 12:43PM on 7-26-2010
this case doesn't, but the Library of Congress just released their updated list of DMCA exceptions, and bypassing DRM in video games is now one of them.
Fred said 12:58PM on 7-26-2010
No, that was for mobile phones, and only for troubleshooting compatibility.
Adam said 9:38PM on 7-26-2010
EULAs are not legally binding.