Ask Prof. Felten About DMCA's Effects

Princeton Computer Science Professor Edward W. Felten has been mentioned and quoted frequently on Slashdot, usually about DMCA matters and, more recently, about new state laws that may make it illegal to use "unapproved" networking devices, VPNs or firewalls with your home or office Internet connection. Please avoid questions that can be answered by reading the pages linked to here or with a bit of Google research. We'll post Prof. Felten's answers to 10 of the highest-moderated questions as soon as he has time to answer them.

Just one question

Do you believe the evolution of our technologies (such as the Internet) are more under control of restrictive commercial interests today than in the past, or has this always been a feature of technological change?

From your discussions with them ...

do you perceive that legislators are aware of the extraordinarily broad negative implications of these new telecommunications laws that are being proposed/enacted?

Also, if you are aware of it, have the hardware/software manufacturers who will be affected joined together to fight these laws, or has it flown under their radar?

Hey, you're a teacher, right?

Given that the things we need to do in our jobs will be illegal in a couple of years, (a) which other fields would you recommend getting into and (b) when should we start going to the local tech school to pick up the training we'll need to make it in our new careers?

Better yet, are there any other countries that have eqivalent programs to our H1-B system? I could always go live as an indentured servant to an American software company overseas.

If this fall through, however, I have dibbs on learning to rebuild engines for a living.

What sort of positive legistlation?

Dr. Felten, do you have an suggestion as to what sort of legistlation could be introduced that would soothe the minds of reactionary lawmakers while preserving the rights that we currently enjoy?

Spelling?

Dr. Felten, how do you feel about the lack of spellchecking by Slashdot authors? Is Priceton(sic) an interesting workplace?

Will ISPs exercise more restrictove TOS now?

The ability to share a high-speed connection with all the computers in the same household is one of the selling points of broadband, much as the ability to provide analog cable service to all the TVs in a house.

Do you see ISPs taking advantage of the new rules to force customers to purchase additional IPs to connect all the machines in the house, or will they recognize one of the selling points of broadband and permit multiple PCs on a single cable modem?

Network Identity

One of the rumored new restrictions is that you may not mask the identity of a network connection. In your opinion, does this refer to the identity of each machine or the identity of the subscriber (who might be responsible for several machines behind a firewall, e.g.)?

In other words, are we talking about "people" or "boxes"?

Have to Assume the Worst

With some kinds of badly written rules, you can pick whichever interpretation annoys you least and work from there. This doesn't appear to be one of them - if somebody can use the VPN/firewall/NAT/etc. to conceal the identity of the user from the carrier (or for that matter, from an eavesdropper), or conceal the subscriber's identity, or conceal which machine behind the firewall the packets are from (thus concealing that you've got more than one, which violates _some_ carrier's terms of service), then it's potentially illegal in Michigan, and you can't sell them your VPN/firewall/NAT/etc. hardware without risking violating it, because the law is quite clear that it not only applies to Michiganders who rip off their cable companies (like most of the other states' laws), it applies to any of them who buy equipment they _could_ use to rip off service or conceal that they're doing it, and it applies to anybody who sells equipment to anybody in Michigan that they could use to rip off service or conceal it.

I work for a big ISP that sells several kinds of VPN services, as well as selling routers to users who want to manage the routers themselves. I'd rather not see our Michigan sales reps risk being hauled into jail

• because that Cisco we installed on their premises can do NAT, or
• because that firewall conceals their machines from crackers, or
• because their VPN box conceals data from eavesdroppers, or
• because their SSL conceals web-visitors' credit card numbers from thieves, or
• because their email system conceals real email addresses from spammers.

And I'd rather not see our sales people out of work either. But until somebody gets a temporary restraining order on enforcement, it's a real problem.

Feasibility?

Do the states enacting these (IMO, bogus) new laws have any idea of the amount of economic damage they could cause? Every place I've worked has used some sort of firewall or VPN technology. Billions of dollars' worth of financial communications and transactions take place over such connections every day. Replacing them or removing them entirely is not an option. Will corporations be overlooked when it comes time to enforce these laws, making them just another tool home-user ISPs can use to enforce Terms Of Service clauses? Or will life become infinitely more complicated for everyone?

- A.P.

Tell me...

For the love of God, man, why???

Or to put it slightly less sillily, what was (and is!) your motivation for getting involved in this side of the Computer Science world, say, as opposed to the nice safe, clean theoretical stuff?

unauthorized devices

Many proposed (anti-vpn) laws have been discussed on slashdot recently [slashdot.org]. Given that many of these laws only cover unlawful devices [slashdot.org], should we still be concerned about this new so called anti-vpn legislation?

-Sean

Intent Vs Effect

Do you think that these laws - especially DCMA - ever had an intended "positive" effect. That is, were the ever really intended to deal with existing copyright problems, piracy, etc... or were they always intended to clamp iron teeth of control down on the consumer.

Some of the provisions of these laws, especially those being so easily misinterpreted or misused, seem to not have any practical intent other than taking rights away from the consumer.

Looking at the original intent of the laws (and hoping it wasn't as bad as they have turned out), what do you think went wrong, and what can be changed?

Prohibition of what got us here?

Do I completely misunderstand the scope of the DMCA, or would it have actually prohibited the actions of clone manufacturers, starting with Compaq, when they reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS in 1984?

It seems this simple fact alone would highlight the ludicrous nature of a law which would prohibit precisely the actions that provided the current state of the industry.

Xesdeeni

A simple one.

Will any of these questions be on the final exam?
g

Signal to Noise

One of the problems I see with efforts to try to get the DMCA and similar legislation revoked and prevented in the future, is a matter of signal to noise. Most voters don't care about the DMCA or even know about it, and those who do usually have to worry about more important priorities like the state of the economy or the war in Iraq. So, my question is, how can we possibly make the DMCA and it's kin important issues to our legislators? Sure, I can write them, but if they are given the choice of voting for the DMCA and getting some campaign money, or voting against and pleasing a handful of constituents, which will they choose?

It's unlikely that the handful of consitutents is going to vote against the candidate purely because of their DMCA stance. Personally, I'm very against the DMCA but when the election time comes around, I'm not voting for the anti-DMCA candidate, I'm voting for the guy who's going to fix the economy and patch our international relationships. So how can somebody like myself really get their voice heard by the right people when the threat of "voting for the other candidate" isn't credible?

What's it gonna take?

Professor Felten,

What's it going to take to get not only our legislators in their infinite wisdom, but the general public, to see the deleterious effects that DRM enforcement efforts and laws like the DMCA are/will have on both the entertainment and computer industries and our rights in general?

From experience, it's pretty difficult to explain exactly why the DMCA is so awful to the average person--it's very hard, for me at least, to provide a 60-second explanation of why I should be able to open up my digital VCR and find out how the software controlling it works, or why it's so bad that there's copy protection on a CD, rendering it useless for playing in a computer?

Perhaps if I could find just the right way to frame the argument, and get that message out, we might have some more people concerned about these matters.

Internet radio

The root of all of the recent controversey surrounding royalties and licensing for internet radio (CARP) stems from an incorrect definition in the 1998 Digital Milennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It fails to differentiate between downloaded and streamed audio content as it pertains to internet radio. From a strictly technical standpoint there isn't much difference. The data being transmitted over the internet to your computer is pretty much identical; downloading just implies that you save a copy. However from a legal standpoint, streamed content is the equivalent of a public performance or broadcast, whereas downloaded content constitutes a distribution of that recording. This makes all the difference in the world when it comes to copyright laws, since the labels making up the RIAA (the copyright holders) should not even be entitled to royalties from internet radio in the first place.

A seemingly benign oversight in the wording can have major implications. Do you forsee significant changes/corrections to the DMCA along these lines? Why or why not...

Roadblocks to IP protections?

Doesn't the DMCA prohibit a company from investigating a violation of their IP if the violation exists on the other side of encryption?

For example, if company M utilized a software algorithm (putting aside the argument about software patents for the moment) inside an encrypted data stream (audio file, video file, etc.) that was actually patented by company A, wouldn't it be a violation of the DMCA for company A to investigate this violation of their patent rights? And wouldn't any evidence they uncovered in violation of the DMCA be inadmissible if they tried to enforce their patent rights against company M?

Xesdeeni

Blanks and Politics

To what extent do you feel that restricting the ability of the common public to log on as 'blanks' (to borrow a Max Headroom term) will limit the possibilities for new ideas to become part of the marketplace/society, given that freedom to express, explore, and freely interact encourages both the best and worst forms of innovation? For example, hacking at its best enables a company to be informed of the latest flaw in their system, while at its worst it can down that system completely.

Wiping out the ability to enact from behind a firewall will in some cases force the individual to assume social responsibility for their actions, and in others, it could cause a perfectly harmless but useful and constructive citizen to not want to take part. (the way that i don't want to fly on an airline that checks my credit info every time i try to board a plane.) In short, do you view this as a critically restrictive measure where society's NEW ideas come into the picture? Are we in danger of alienating the very people who would be responsible for future innovation of everything around us? I'm one of those who would be alienated, because I view this as an inalienable right to privacy.

DMCA and EUCD

In your opinion, do residents of Europe and other US-friendly (business-wise) areas have a hope of avoiding being adversely affected by the DMCA (or superDMCA) or its foreign implementations (e.g. EUCD) and is technological civil disobedience the best form of activism to follow?

- Brian.

FUD

It has been claimed that much of the ado about DMCA is demagoguery, particularly with respect to restrictions on security research. While I do not in any way believe that the DMCA is a good law, particularly with regards to its flaunting of fair use, I tend to agree. Could you comment in greater depth as to the threat that the DMCA poses to researchers, and perhaps clarify this debate?

where the 'right to tinker' came in handy....

Prof. Felten,
You are a vocal and staunch proponent of the 'right to tinker'. I understand and support your views on this subject, but I was wondering if you could give us a few examples where the 'right to tinker' was imperative to a major innovation? What innovations may have never come about or been delayed if the 'right to tinker' had never been a assumed privilege of the American citizen?

Keep up the good work!

The DMCA And Independant Musicians

How exactly would the DMCA help/hurt independant musicians such as myself? In the beginning, most bands have to try and fend for themselves, and would find things like P2P filesharing to be a great help in getting heard. It seems as if the DMCA is tailored to assist large record companies, and not so much smaller labels and/or independant bands...

Corporate Impact?

Most of the debate surrounding proposed legislation on VPN's deals with the impact on the consumer's right to tinker at home. One issue that seems to be absent from the debate is the impact such legislation would have on the corporate world and the average worker's ability to telecommute using their ISP. Also, many corporations with geographically scattered offices use VPNs to put everyone on the 'same network'. Is a distinction being drawn between corporate and consumer's rights? Can these bills be effectively killed by drawing big corporations into the fray?

DMCA and other laws

Most, but not all, readers of Slashdot have a distaste for the DMCA and other laws that have strengthened copyright laws. But what most do not accept is the fact that these laws were created to solve a very real problem.

Software and media piracy is no longer an underground sub-culture. Just about anyone with enough money for a computer is able to easily find and illegally duplicate software, music, movies, and other media. Worse yet, most of the (former) music and movie buying public are doing just that.

The only "reasonable" alternative to strengthening laws and adding copy-protection to media is to give the media away, and make money with live appearances and peripheral tangible products, such as lunchboxes and t-shirts. I'm sure the people working for media conglomerates do not find this acceptable.

Do you agree with this assessment, and if so, if you had the chance to re-architect the DMCA to your liking, what would you change? Would you remove some parts, or augment others?

Re:DMCA and other laws

You've got a valid point, but you need to change your wording - nobody gives (or at least, nobody SHOULD give) a shit whether or not media conglomerates find it acceptable. The point of copyright, the very reason for it's existence, and it's only useful function, is to expand the public domain. It does this by offering a limited monopoly in return for the release of works. This is inherently in opposition to the buisness model of many media congolomerates, which is why we're seeing such draconian IP legislation in the last few years.

The ONLY important question in IP legislation is whether or not it will enhance the public domain. Whether anyone can make money, or whether the existing entertainment industry can adapt is totally irrelevent.

This is why (legally protected) DRM is such a bad thing - because it limits access to work far beyond the limits of copyright, and therefore detracts from the public domain, rather than adding to it.

The idea that media conglomerats have some sort of rights here is a fundamental falsehood, and it only makes it harder to focus on the true issues. Copyright law doesn't care if anyone makes money off of it. The buisness interests of anyone, musician or international megacorporation, do not and should not figure into the equation at all.

Content Vs. Distribution

Radio stations today use a wide variety of digital tools to automate broadcasting. Given that record companies reserve the right to authorize who can broadcast the contents of a CD, what additional effects do you see the DMCA having on radio and eventually web-based broadcasting besides the stratification of the market into megacorps and everyone else (which has already occurred.)? Should copy-protected CD's become the norm, would a "broadcast license" be implemented, with restrictions on the broadcasters? I can't see the record companies providing "protection-free" cd's to record stations, because the resale market for DJ-promotional copies would become even more fierce. Or would we see more mega-companies like AOL-Time-Warner, which own both content and distribution channels?

Fighting back...

Basically, almost everyone with a technological background will agree that this law is flawed. Is this soemthing without precendence? That Congress acted on pure ignorance, of course not.

My question to you Mr. Felten, do you think this law will inspire a new breed of creativity among hardware developers?

Maybe the same way copyright inspired copyleft, the DMCA is a form for companies to protect their products, and stop other people from profiting on those products (god forbid!), but since this really throws onto the pile, and adds hardware materials in to the copyright bin, maybe it will inspire some hardware enthousiasts to create copylefted hardware? blueprints and materials created by the people who love to tamper, and who would put a type of GPL on the specific materials as to prevent anyone from trying to hide the actual source if you will, of the product in question.

I personally think this would go a long way, engineers could actually start making money, by receiving support from people who enjoy their products, and suggest ways to improve such things. (Currently hard working engineers make billions for their respective companies and bring him mearly pennies to feed their families.)

I might be way off base, as the production line has it's fee's, but even tho it would be copylefted, dosen't mean it couldn't be sold, just means that anyone could improve it, or modify it.

Thanks for your time. Remi

Preemptive answers

Prof. Felten has a weblog, Freedom to Tinker [freedom-to-tinker.com]. It may answer some questions in advance. He is also teaching a class this semester called "Information Technology and the Law". The readings are online [princeton.edu].

Greetings, Professor Felten

Shall we play a game?

Micromonopolies

background: For a long time, it was thought a monopoly pretty much was conceived & sustained through assistance through the government (at some level), but not necessarily via patents or copyrights; i.e., look at things such as utility companies. After the two marathon lawsuits into the latter decades of the 20th centuries (IBM, Ma Bell), things seemed to quiet down a bit, except for cable companies & similar ilk. Now, we've got competition for cable companies via satellites (although 95+% of people who have have access to cable only have a choice of a single company), potentially multiple broadband vendors, and with the fuel cell development, a choice of not using an electrical utility.

All of that said (whew, sorry)...

Now that the DMCA has been passed and pretty much defended in the courts, isn't it starting to form "minimonopolies" (or "micromonopolies")? If so (or not), why? And do you see this changing over time? If it hurts the consumer, what do you think it'll take for the consumer to vote with their pocketbook and modify this?

Thank!

Super DMCA and anonymity

If I use a VPN or an anonymous remailer, all of my IP packets are correctly labeled with regard to their source and destination as they travel from my system to the remailer or VPN server. If I use a NAT box, all of my IP packets are correctly labeled with regard to their source and destination as they travel from the NAT box to the remote system.

Why do you claim that these technologies would be outlawed by the so-called Super DMCA laws, even though using these technologies does not involve falsifying the source or destination of any of my packets? Isn't it more likely that these laws are directed against IP spoofing, where people do in fact falsify these fields, to the great detriment of the net?

Strategy

Our current methods of informing the public and the government about the evils of the DMCA seem to be reactive and passive -- defending a lawsuit, writing public responses to the librarian of Congress periodically about the DMCA, setting up resources where the public if they were so inclined could stop by and learn about the problem.

Do you feel that it would be a good time for a shift in strategy towards more active measures such as forming a group to lobby representatives directly, issuing mailings about the DMCA particularly to those whose representatives support legislation like the DMCA/UCITA/SSSCA, or beginning a television ad campaign? Such an endeavor is bound to cost a bit, but I can't help but feel that particularly with 2004 coming up having a bit of organized PR on our side of the debate would be quite helpful.

DMCA or Copyright in general?

Do you think the root cause of all this trouble is with the DMCA in particular, or is the Act just a symptom of the problems with existing federal copyright laws in general?

Our position in the world

Do you see this new legislation altering our ability to work remotely? Will these restrictions place undue hardship on US workers when compared with facilities in other countries? Is it likely that other countries will evolve faster technologically as a result of these draconian measures?

Balance of Interests?

Between the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act granting longer terms to copyright and the DMCA granting greater "enforcement" powers to the holder (in the form of legally-unbreakable encryption) the trend in copyright seems to be passing into more power for the holder and a weakening --perhaps even destruction-- of fair use and of a public domain. Likewise, the proliferation of code patents encroaches upon the creative commons from yet another angle, and all of these aspects serve only the entrenched players in various fields (cable/satellite companies, MPAA/RIAA, IBM/Microsoft/Adobe, etc.). What would you propose to be the proper balance of interests and what measures do you think should be taken to arrive there?

Legal interpretation

Much of the problem with the laws such as the recent state anti-NAT laws and the DMCA revolves around judicial interpretation. (Eg, whether NAT or freenet is illegal strongly depends on how the courts read the definitions of a communications device in the various laws.) My question to you is: is there anything we can do to influence this interpretation? From my understanding, once there is a ruling on a subject, that becomes precedent, so if we can get a ruling stating that these laws do not cover things like freenet, life gets better. Getting that ruling, however, is hard. Is there a "good" way to do that (besides bankrupting myself by getting prosecuted for violating it)?

thanks.

what can we do?

What is the most effective thing Joe Q. Public can do to fight DRM? There are all sorts of organizations with various methods, including petitions, boycotts, information-sharing, etc., and the ever popular "write your senator" form letters. This seems like a case of David vs Goliath, and I'd like to know what stone would be best to pick up.

pragmatic question about 'fair use'

Professor Felten,

The world I've lived in pre-Internet allowed me to, if I found a great newspaper article (or TV show episode) or song, to make a copy of it to pass along to one or a handful of friends to check out.

It certainly seems like this will be technologically unfeasible if/when sufficient copy protection becomes embedded in content-viewing technology in the mid-term future.

I know you aren't a lawyer, but you have parsed these laws carefully and talked to more lawyers than I. Did the type of usage I described above ever fall under 'fair use'? Is it 'fair use' today, and if not, is there a particular piece of legislation that changed the legality of this?

--LP

Ethics of technology on college campuses

Dear Dr. Felten,

Recently, the vice provost of undergraduate studies in my university has initiated a series of activities aimed at getting active student input on improving the educational experience on our campus. One of my pet peeves with the studentry of my school is that they're rather apathetic and uninformed of political and social issues in the world surrounding us. Given that tomorrow these people would be engineers and scientists, and above all, citizens, I think it is vitally important that they are well aware of current social and legal issues in our technological society.

My two questions are: 1) how would you go about encouraging college students to become more interested in issues like the DMCA 2) do you feel that most engineering and science students in Princeton University have a good understanding of the legal and ethical issues in IT?

2600, and media in general

Do you think that the DMCA has had an effect on the media? Using 2600 as a prime example, don't you think that the media's free speech rights are restricted for fear of persecution? [media including websites]

Anonymous remailers

NAT or VPN may fall within the meaning of laws against concealing the identity of origin of Net packets. Anonymous remailers, intended to fully obscure the origin of messages, most certainly would violate these laws. Yet there are times when a citizen wants to be able to give a tip to law enforcement without becoming personally involved. Let's say I have a well-founded suspicion that my neighbor robbed the bank in the next town. Let's further posit I don't want my neighbor to have any hint I've turned her in, and don't want to play any role in court proceedings (maybe she has a sister who'd come after my family; maybe I don't want the government to inquire as to how I know about the robbery). Won't laws which criminalize anonymous cooperation with law enforcement significantly hinder the well-being of society?