New Yorkers For Fair Use

© Copyright for the Digital Millennium
Our collegues at the EFF have produced this paper on five years under the DMCA. It is a must read!


Unintended Consequences:

Five Years under the DMCA


1.   Executive Summary

   Since they were enacted in 1998, the anti-circumvention provisions of
   the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), codified in section 1201
   of the Copyright Act, have not been used as Congress envisioned.
   Congress meant to stop copyright pirates from defeating anti-piracy
   protections added to copyrighted works, and to ban black box devices
   intended for that purpose.[37][1]

   In practice, the anti-circumvention provisions have been used to
   stifle a wide array of legitimate activities, rather than to stop
   copyright piracy. As a result, the DMCA has developed into a serious
   threat to several important public policy priorities:

   Section 1201 Chills Free Expression and Scientific Research.

   Experience with section 1201 demonstrates that it is being used to
   stifle free speech and scientific research. The lawsuit against 2600
   magazine, threats against Princeton Professor Edward Feltens team of
   researchers, and prosecution of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov
   have chilled the legitimate activities of journalists, publishers,
   scientists, students, programmers, and members of the public.

   Section 1201 Jeopardizes Fair Use.

   By banning all acts of circumvention, and all technologies and tools
   that can be used for circumvention, section 1201 grants to copyright
   owners the power to unilaterally eliminate the publics fair use
   rights. Already, the music industry has begun deploying copy-protected
   CDs that promise to curtail consumers ability to make legitimate,
   personal copies of music they have purchased.

   Section 1201 Impedes Competition and Innovation.

   Rather than focusing on pirates, many copyright owners have wielded
   the DMCA to hinder their legitimate competitors. For example, Sony has
   invoked section 1201 to protect its monopoly on Playstation video game
   consoles, as well as their regionalization system limiting users in
   one country from playing games legitimately purchased in another.

   Section 1201 Becomes All-Purpose Ban on Access To Computer Networks

   Further, section 1201 has been misused as a new general-purpose
   prohibition on computer network access which, unlike the several
   federal anti-hacking statutes that already protect computer network
   owners from unauthorized intrusions, lacks any financial harm
   threshold. Disgruntled ex-employer Pearl Investments use of the DMCA
   against a contract programmer who connected to the companys computer
   system through a password-protected Virtual Private Network
   illustrates the potential for unscrupulous persons to misuse the DMCA
   to achieve what would not be possible under existing computer access
   regulation regimes.

   This document collects a number of reported cases where the
   anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA have been invoked not
   against pirates, but against consumers, scientists, and legitimate
   competitors. It will be updated from time to time as additional cases
   come to light. The latest version can always be obtained at
   www.eff.org.

2.   DMCA Legislative Background

   Congress enacted section 1201 in response to two pressures. Congress
   was responding to the perceived need to implement obligations imposed
   on the U.S. by the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization
   (WIPO) Copyright Treaty. Section 1201, however, went further than the
   WIPO treaty required.[38][2] The details of section 1201, then, were a
   response not just to U.S. treaty obligations, but also to the concerns
   of copyright owners that their works would be widely pirated in the
   networked digital world.[39][3]

   Section 1201 contains two distinct prohibitions: a ban on acts of
   circumvention, and a ban on the distribution of tools and technologies
   used for circumvention.

   The first prohibition, set out in section 1201(a)(1), prohibits the
   act of circumventing a technological measure used by copyright owners
   to control access to their works (access controls). So, for example,
   this provision makes it unlawful to defeat the encryption system used
   on DVD movies. This ban on acts of circumvention applies even where
   the purpose for decrypting the movie would otherwise be legitimate. As
   a result, when Disneys Tarzan DVD prevents you from fast-forwarding
   through the commercials that preface the feature presentation, efforts
   to circumvent this restriction would be unlawful.

   Second, sections 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) outlaw the manufacture, sale,
   distribution or trafficking of tools and technologies that make
   circumvention possible. These provisions ban both technologies that
   defeat access controls, and also technologies that defeat use
   restrictions imposed by copyright owners, such as copy controls. These
   provisions prevent technology vendors from taking steps to defeat the
   copy-protection now appearing on many music CDs, for example.

   Section 1201 also includes a number of exceptions for certain limited
   classes of activities, including security testing, reverse engineering
   of software, encryption research, and law enforcement. These
   exceptions have been extensively criticized as being too narrow to be
   of real use to the constituencies who they were intended to
   assist.[40][4]

   A violation of any of the act or tools prohibitions is subject to
   significant civil and, in some circumstances, criminal penalties.

3.   Free Expression and Scientific Research

   Section 1201 is being used by a number of copyright owners to stifle
   free speech and legitimate scientific research. The lawsuit against
   2600 magazine, threats against Princeton Professor Edward Feltens team
   of researchers, and prosecution of the Russian programmer Dmitry
   Sklyarov have chilled a variety of legitimate activities.

   Bowing to DMCA liability fears, online service providers and bulletin
   board operators have begun to censor discussions of copy-protection
   systems, programmers have removed computer security programs from
   their websites, and students, scientists and security experts have
   stopped publishing details of their research on existing security
   protocols. Foreign scientists are increasingly uneasy about traveling
   to the United States out of fear of possible DMCA liability, and
   certain technical conferences have begun to relocate overseas.

   These developments will ultimately result in weakened security for all
   computer users (including, ironically, for copyright owners counting
   on technical measures to protect their works), as security researchers
   shy away from research that might run afoul of section 1201.[41][5]

Cyber-Security Czar Notes Chill on Research

   Speaking at MIT in October 2002, White House Cyber Security Chief
   Richard Clarke called for DMCA reform, noting his concern that the
   DMCA had been used to chill legitimate computer security research. The
   Boston Globe quoted Clarke as saying, I think a lot of people didn't
   realize that it would have this potential chilling effect on
   vulnerability research.

   Jonathan Band, Congress Unknowingly Undermines Cyber-Security, S.J.
   Mercury News, Dec. 16, 2002.
   [42]http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/4750224.htm

   Hiawatha Bray, Cyber Chief Speaks on Data Network Security, The Boston
   Globe, October 17, 2002.
   [43]http://www.boston.com/globe/search/

Professor Feltens Research Team Threatened

   In September 2000, a multi-industry group known as the Secure Digital
   Music Initiative (SDMI) issued a public challenge encouraging skilled
   technologists to try to defeat certain watermarking technologies
   intended to protect digital music. Princeton Professor Edward Felten
   and a team of researchers at Princeton, Rice, and Xerox took up the
   challenge and succeeded in removing the watermarks.

   When the team tried to present their results at an academic
   conference, however, SDMI representatives threatened the researchers
   with liability under the DMCA. The threat letter was also delivered to
   the researchers employers and the conference organizers. After
   extensive discussions with counsel, the researchers grudgingly
   withdrew their paper from the conference. The threat was ultimately
   withdrawn and a portion of the research was published at a subsequent
   conference, but only after the researchers filed a lawsuit.

   After enduring this experience, at least one of the researchers
   involved has decided to forgo further research efforts in this field.

   Pamela Samuelson, Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to Science, 293
   Science 2028, Sept. 14, 2001.
   [44]http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/293/5537/2028

   Letter from Matthew Oppenheim, SDMI General Counsel, to Prof. Edward
   Felten, April 9, 2001.
   [45]http://cryptome.org/sdmi-attack.htm

Hewlett Packard Threatens SNOsoft

   Hewlett-Packard resorted to Section 1201 threats when researchers
   published their discovery of a security flaw in HPs Tru64 UNIX
   operating system. The researchers, a loosely-organized collective
   known as Secure Network Operations (SNOsoft), received the DMCA threat
   after releasing software in July 2002 that demonstrated
   vulnerabilities that HP had been aware of for some time, but had not
   bothered to fix.

   After the DMCA threat received widespread press attention, HP
   ultimately withdrew the threat. Security researchers received the
   message, howeverpublish vulnerability research at your own risk.

   Declan McCullagh, Security Warning Draws DMCA Threat, CNET News, July
   30, 2002.
   [46]http://news.com.com/2100-1023-947325.html

Blackboard Threatens Security Researchers

   In April 2003, educational software company Blackboard Inc. used a
   DMCA threat to stop the presentation of research on security
   vulnerabilities in its products at the InterzOne II conference in
   Atlanta. Students Billy Hoffman and Virgil Griffith were scheduled to
   present their research on security flaws in the Blackboard ID card
   system used by university campus security systems but were blocked
   shortly before the talk by a cease-and-desist letter invoking the
   DMCA. Blackboard obtained a temporary restraining order against the
   students and the conference organizers at a secret ex parte hearing
   the day before the conference began, giving the students and
   conference organizer no opportunity to appear in court or challenge
   the order before the scheduled presentation. Although the lawsuit
   complaint Blackboard subsequently filed did not mention the DMCA, its
   invocation in the original cease-and-desist letter preceding the
   complaint contributed to the chill the students and conference
   organizers felt in challenging the complaint and proceeding with the
   scheduled presentation.

   John Borland, Court Blocks Security Conference Talk, CNET News, April
   14, 2003.
   [47]http://news.com.com/2100-1028-996836.html

Xbox Hack Book Dropped by Publisher

   In 2003, U.S. publisher John Wiley & Sons dropped plans to publish a
   book by security researcher Andrew Bunnie Huang, citing DMCA liability
   concerns. Wiley commissioned Huang to write the book which analyzes
   security flaws Huang discovered in the process of reverse-engineering
   the Microsoft X-Box game console, after Huang published his research
   as part of his doctoral work at M.I.T. Huang did not distribute the
   Xbox public security keys which he had isolated through reverse
   engineering and did not copy any Xbox code. Although the DMCA includes
   exceptions for circumvention for computer security testing and reverse
   engineering, they were too narrow to be of use to Huang or his
   publisher.

   Following Microsofts legal action against the website vendor of an
   Xbox mod chip in early 2003, and the music industrys 2001 DMCA threats
   against Professor Feltens research team, Wiley dropped the book
   fearing that the publisher might be liable for making available a
   circumvention device. Huangs initial attempt to self-publish was
   thwarted after his online shopping cart provider also withdrew, citing
   DMCA concerns. After several months of negotiations, Huang eventually
   self-published the book in mid 2003. The book is now being published
   by No Starch Press.

   David Becker, Testing Microsoft and the DMCA, CNET News, April 15,
   2003.
   [48]http://news.com.com/2008-1082-996787.html

   Clive Akass, Huang Jury on Xbox Cracker, TechNewsWorld, August 2003
   [49]http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31406.html

   Seth Schiesel, Behind a Hackers Book, a Primer on Copyright Law, New
   York Times, Circuits, July 10, 2003.
   [50]http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/technology/circuits/10xbox.html

Censorware Research Obstructed

   Seth Finkelstein conducts research on censorware software (i.e.,
   programs that block websites that contain objectionable material),
   working to document flaws in such software, including the products of
   N2H2, a leading censorware company. Finkelsteins research documenting
   websites inappropriately blocked by N2H2s software assisted the ACLUs
   successful First Amendment challenge to the use of mandatory web
   filtering software by federally-funded public libraries.[51][6]

   N2H2 claims that its encrypted list of blocked websites is legally
   protected by the DMCA against attempts to read and analyze it.
   Utilizing a limited three year exemption granted by the Librarian of
   Congress and Copyright Register in 2000, Finkelstein circumvented the
   encryption on the list of sites blocked by BESS in order to analyze
   flaws in that list.

   However, Finkelsteins research work has been severely limited by the
   fact that the three year exemption is limited to the act of
   circumvention, and does not permit him to create or distribute tools
   that would facilitate his research. In addition, the existing
   exemption is due to expire in October 2003, and as Finkelstein
   testified before the Copyright Office in its 2003 rule-making hearing,
   unless the exemption is re-granted, Finkelstein will be unable to
   continue his research because he fears that censorware companies may
   bring a DMCA lawsuit against him to terminate his research. Even if he
   were later found not to have violated section 1201, the potential for
   a DMCA lawsuit would preclude him from undertaking further research.

   Jennifer 8 Lee, Cracking the Code of Online Censorship, New York
   Times, July 19, 2001.
   [52]http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html

   Transcript of Hearing in Copyright Office Rulemaking Proceeding RM
   2002-04, tri-ennial anti-circumvention exemption hearing, April 11,
   2003, at pages 11, 31 available at:
   [53]http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/hearings/schedule.html

   Benjamin Edelman has also conducted extensive research into flaws in
   various censorware products. Edelmans research led to his providing
   expert testimony for the ACLU in a recent federal court case
   challenging the constitutionality of the Children's Internet
   Protection Act (CIPA), which mandates that public libraries use
   censorware products like those sold by N2H2.

   In the course of his work for the ACLU, Edelman discovered that the
   DMCA might interfere with his efforts to learn what websites are
   blocked by N2H2 products. Because he sought to create and distribute
   software tools to enable others to analyze the list if it changed,
   Edelman could not rely on the limited 3 year exception. As he was not
   willing to risk civil and criminal penalties under Section 1201,
   Edelman was forced to go to federal court to seek clarification of his
   legal rights before he could undertake his legitimate research.
   However, underscoring the chilling effect of the DMCA on such
   research, the Court dismissed Edelmans case for lack of standing.

   ACLU, In Legal First, ACLU Sues Over New Copyright Law (case archive).
   [54]http://archive.aclu.org/issues/cyber/Edelman_N2H2_feature.html

Dmitry Sklyarov Arrested

   In July 2001, Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov was jailed for
   several weeks and detained for five months in the United States after
   speaking at the DEFCON conference in Las Vegas.

   Prosecutors, prompted by software goliath Adobe Systems Inc., alleged
   that Sklyarov had worked on a software program known as the Advanced
   e-Book Processor, which was distributed over the Internet by his
   Russian employer, ElcomSoft Co. Ltd. The software allowed owners of
   Adobe electronic books (e-books) to convert them from Adobes e-Book
   format into Adobe Portable Document Format (pdf) files, thereby
   removing restrictions embedded into the files by e-Book publishers.

   Sklyarov was never accused of infringing any copyrighted e-Book, nor
   of assisting anyone else to infringe copyrights. His alleged crime was
   working on a software tool with many legitimate uses, simply because
   third parties he has never met might use the tool to copy an e-Book
   without the publishers permission.

   The Department of Justice ultimately permitted Sklyarov to return
   home, but elected to proceed against his employer, ElcomSoft, under
   the criminal provisions of the DMCA. In December 2002, a jury
   acquitted Elcomsoft of all charges, completing an 18-month ordeal for
   the wrongly-accused Russian software company.

   Lawrence Lessig, Jail Time in the Digital Age, N.Y. Times at A7, July
   30, 2001.
   [55]http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/30/opinion/30LESS.html

   Lisa Bowman, Elcomsoft Verdict: Not Guilty, CNET News, Dec. 17, 2002.
   [56]http://news.com.com/2100-1023-978176.html

Scientists and Programmers Withhold Research

   Following the legal threat against Professor Feltens research team and
   the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov, a number of prominent computer security
   experts have curtailed their legitimate research activities out of
   fear of potential DMCA liability.

   For example, prominent Dutch cryptographer and security systems
   analyst Niels Ferguson discovered a major security flaw in an Intel
   video encryption system known as High Bandwidth Digital Content
   Protection (HDCP). He declined to publish his results on his website
   relating to flaws in HDCP, on the grounds that he travels frequently
   to the U.S. and is fearful of prosecution and/or liability under the
   U.S. DMCA law.

   Niels Ferguson, Censorship in Action: Why I Dont Publish My HDCP
   Results, Aug. 15, 2001.
   [57]http://www.macfergus.com/niels/dmca/cia.html

   Niels Ferguson, Declaration in Felten & Ors v R.I.A.A. case, Aug. 13,
   2001.
   [58]http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/Felten_v_RIAA/20010813_ferguson_decl.ht
   ml

   Lisa M. Bowman, Researchers Weigh Publication, Prosecution, CNET News,
   Aug. 15, 2001.
   [59]http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6886574.html

   Following the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov, Fred Cohen, a professor of
   digital forensics and respected security consultant, removed his
   Forensix evidence-gathering software from his website, citing fear of
   potential DMCA liability.

   Another respected network security protection expert, Dug Song, also
   removed content from his website for the same reason. Mr. Song is the
   author of several security papers, including a paper describing a
   common vulnerability in many firewalls.

   Robert Lemos, Security Workers: Copyright Law Stifles, CNET News,
   Sept. 6, 2001.
   [60]http://news.com.com/2100-1001-272716.html

   In mid-2001 an anonymous programmer discovered a vulnerability in
   Microsofts proprietary e-Book digital rights management code, but
   refused to publish the results, citing DMCA liability concerns.

   Wade Roush, Breaking Microsoft's e-Book Code, Technology Review at 24,
   November 2001.
   [61]http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/innovation11101.asp

Foreign Scientists Avoid U.S.

   Foreign scientists have expressed concerns about traveling to the U.S.
   following the arrest of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov. Some
   foreign scientists have advocated boycotting conferences held in the
   U.S. and a number of conference bodies have decided to move their
   conferences to non-U.S. locations. Russia has issued a travel warning
   to Russian programmers traveling to the U.S.

   Highly respected British Linux programmer Alan Cox resigned from the
   USENIX committee of the Advanced Computing Systems Association, the
   committee that organizes many of the U.S. computing conferences,
   because of his concerns about traveling to the U.S. Cox has urged
   USENIX to hold its annual conference offshore. The International
   Information Hiding Workshop Conference, the conference at which
   Professor Feltens team intended to present its original paper, chose
   to break with tradition and held its next conference outside of the
   U.S. following the SDMI threat to Professor Felten and his team.

   Will Knight, Computer Scientists boycott US over digital copyright
   law, New Scientist, July 23, 2001.
   [62]http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns00001063

   Alan Cox of Red Hat UK Ltd, declaration in Felten v. RIAA, Aug. 13,
   2001.
   [63]http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/Felten_v_RIAA/20010813_cox_decl.html

   Jennifer 8 Lee, Travel Advisory for Russian Programmers, N.Y. Times at
   C4, Sept.10, 2001.
   [64]http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/10/technology/10WARN.html

IEEE Wrestles with DMCA

   The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), which
   publishes 30 per cent of all computer science journals worldwide,
   recently was drawn into the controversy surrounding science and the
   DMCA. Apparently concerned about possible liability under Section
   1201, the IEEE in November 2001 instituted a policy requiring all
   authors to indemnify IEEE for any liabilities incurred should a
   submission result in legal action under the DCMA.

   After an outcry from IEEE members, the organization ultimately revised
   its submission policies, removing mention of the DMCA. According to
   Bill Hagen, manager of IEEE Intellectual Property Rights, The Digital
   Millennium Copyright Act has become a very sensitive subject among our
   authors. Its intended to protect digital content, but its application
   in some specific cases appears to have alienated large segments of the
   research community.

   IEEE press release, IEEE to Revise New Copyright Form to Address
   Author Concerns, April 22, 2002.
   [65]http://www.ieee.org/newsinfo/dmca.html

   Will Knight, Controversial Copyright Clause Abandoned, New Scientist,
   April 15, 2002.
   [66]http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992169

2600 Magazine Censored

   The Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes case[67][7] illustrates the
   chilling effect that section 1201 has had on the freedom of the press.

   In that case, eight major motion picture companies brought a DMCA suit
   against 2600 Magazine seeking to block it from publishing the DeCSS
   software program, which defeats the encryption used on DVD movies.
   2600 had made the program available on its web site in the course of
   ongoing coverage of the controversy surrounding the DMCA. The magazine
   was not involved in the development of software, nor was it accused of
   having used the software for any copyright infringement.

   Notwithstanding the First Amendments guarantee of a free press, the
   district court permanently barred 2600 from publishing, or even
   linking to, the DeCSS software code. In November 2001, the Second
   Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision.

   In essence, the movie studios effectively obtained a stop the presses
   order banning the publication of truthful information by a news
   publication concerning a matter of public concernan unprecedented
   curtailment of well-established First Amendment principles.

   Carl S. Kaplan, Questioning Continues in Copyright Suit, N.Y. Times,
   May 4, 2001.
   [68]http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/04/technology/04CYBERLAW.html

   Simson Garfinkel, The Net Effect: The DVD Rebellion,Technology Review
   at 25, July/Aug. 2001.
   [69]http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/garfinkel0701.asp

   Xenia P. Kobylarz, DVD Case ClashFree Speech Advocates Say Copyright
   Owners Want to Lock Up Ideas; Encryption Code is Key, S.F. Daily
   Journal, May 1, 2001.

CNET Reporter Feels Chill

   Prominent CNET News reporter Declan McCullagh recently found four
   publicly-available documents on the Transportation Security
   Administration (TSA) website. The website announced that the documents
   contained information about airport security procedures, the
   relationship between federal and local police, and a liability
   information sheet. A note on the site stated that this information is
   restricted to airport management and local law enforcement. No
   password was necessary to download the documents, but they were
   distributed in encrypted form and a password was required to open and
   read them.

   McCullagh obtained the passwords from an anonymous source, but fear of
   DMCA liability stopped him from reading the documentsusing a password
   without authorization could violate Section 1201. This is particularly
   ironic, as any foreign journalist beyond the reach of the DMCA would
   be free to use the password.

   Journalists traditionally haven't worried about copyright law all that
   much, said McCullagh, But nowadays intellectual property rights have
   gone too far, and arguably interfere with the newsgathering process.

   Declan McCullagh, Will This Land Me in Jail?, CNET News, Dec. 23,
   2002.
   [70]http://news.com.com/2010-1028-978636.html

Microsoft Threatens Slashdot

   In spring 2000, Microsoft invoked the DMCA against the Internet
   publication forum Slashdot, demanding that forum moderators delete
   materials relating to Microsofts proprietary implementation of an open
   security standard known as Kerberos.

   In the Slashdot forum, several individuals alleged that Microsoft had
   changed the open, non-proprietary Kerberos specification in order to
   prevent non-Microsoft servers from interacting with Windows 2000. Many
   speculated that this move was intended to force users to purchase
   Microsoft server software. Although Microsoft responded to this
   criticism by publishing its Kerberos specification, it conditioned
   access to the specification on agreement to a click-wrap license
   agreement that expressly forbade disclosure of the specification
   without Microsofts prior consent.

   Slashdot posters responded by republishing the Microsoft
   specification. Microsoft then invoked the DMCA, demanding that
   Slashdot remove the republished specifications.

   In the words of Georgetown law professor Julie Cohen, If Microsoft's
   interpretation of the DMCA's ban on circumvention technologies is
   right, then it doesn't seem to matter much whether posting
   unauthorized copies of the Microsoft Kerberos specification would be a
   fair use. A publisher can prohibit fair-use commentary simply by
   implementing access and disclosure restrictions that bind the entire
   public. Anyone who discloses the information, or even tells others how
   to get it, is a felon.

   Julie Cohen, Call it the Digital Millennium Censorship Act Unfair Use,
   The New Republic, May 23, 2000.
   [71]http://www.thenewrepublic.com/cyberspace/cohen052300.html

AVSforum.com Censors TiVo Discussion

   The specter of DMCA litigation has chilled speech on smaller web
   bulletin boards as well. In June 2001, for example, the administrator
   of AVSforum.com, a popular forum where TiVo digital video recorder
   owners discuss TiVo features, censored all discussion about a software
   program that allegedly permitted TiVo users to move video from their
   TiVos to their personal computers. In the words of the forum
   administrator, My fear with this is more or less I have no clue what
   is a protected system on the TiVo box under copyright (or
   what-have-you) and what is not. Thus my fear for the site.

   Lisa M. Bowman, TiVo Forum Hushes Hacking Discussion, CNET News, June
   11, 2001.
   [72]http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6249739.html

Mac Forum Censors iTunes Store Discussion

   Macintosh enthusiast website Macosxhints censored publication of
   information about methods for evading the copy protection on songs
   purchased from the Apple iTunes Music Store in May 2003, citing DMCA
   liability concerns. Songs purchased from the Apple iTunes Music Store
   are downloaded in Apples proprietary AAC file format, wrapped in
   digital copy protection. This prevents purchasers from playing the
   songs on non-iPod portable MP3 players or from transferring songs to
   non Mac OS computers for personal, non-commercial use, even if that
   would be considered fair use under copyright law. As the webmaster for
   the site noted, even though information on bypassing the copy
   protection was readily available on the Internet at the time,
   republishing user hints on work-arounds risked attracting a DMCA
   lawsuit and harsh penalties.

   [73]http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20030507104823670#com
   ments

4.   Fair Use Under Siege

   Fair use is a crucial element in American copyright lawthe principle
   that the public is entitled, without having to ask permission, to use
   copyrighted works in transformative ways or other ways that do not
   unduly interfere with the copyright owners market for a work. Fair
   uses include personal, noncommercial uses, such as using a VCR to
   record a television program for later viewing. Fair use also includes
   activities undertaken for purposes such as criticism, comment, news
   reporting, teaching, scholarship or research.

   While stopping copyright infringement is an important policy
   objective, Section 1201 throws out the baby of fair use with the
   bathwater of digital piracy. By employing technical protection
   measures to control access to and use of copyrighted works, and using
   section 1201 litigation against anyone who tampers with those
   measures, copyright owners can unilaterally eliminate fair use,
   re-writing the copyright bargain developed by Congress and the courts
   over more than a century.

Copy-protected CDs

   The introduction of copy-protected CDs into the marketplace
   illustrates the collision between fair use and the DMCA. Record labels
   are aggressively incorporating copy-protection on new music releases.
   Over 10 million copy-protected discs are already in circulation,
   according to Midbar Technology Ltd, (now Macrovision), one vendor of
   copy-protection technology. Sony claims that it has released over 11
   million copy-protected discs worldwide. Executives from major record
   labels EMI and BMG have both stated that a significant proportion of
   all CDs released in the U.S. will be copy-protected by the end of
   2003.

   Whatever the impact that these copy protection technologies may have
   on online infringement, they are certain to interfere with the fair
   use expectations of consumers. For example, copy-protected discs will
   disappoint the hundreds of thousands of consumers who have purchased
   MP3 players, despite the fact that making an MP3 copy of a CD for
   personal use is a fair use. Making mix CDs or copies of CDs for the
   office or car are other examples of fair uses that are potentially
   impaired by copy-protection technologies.

   Companies that distribute tools to repair these dysfunctional CDs,
   restoring to consumers their fair use privileges, run the risk of
   lawsuits under section 1201s ban on circumvention tools and
   technologies.

   Rep. Rick Boucher, Time to Rewrite the DMCA, CNET News, Jan. 29, 2002.
   [74]http://news.com.com/2010-1078-825335.html

   Dan Gillmor, Entertainment Industry's Copyright Fight Puts Consumers
   in Cross Hairs, San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 12, 2002.
   [75]http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/2658555.htm

   Gwendolyn Mariano, Copy-Protected CDs Slide Into Stores, CNET News,
   Feb. 12, 2002.
   [76]http://news.com.com/2100-1023-835841.html

   Jon Healey and Jeff Leeds, Record Labels Grapple with CD Protection,
   Los Angeles Times, November 29, 2002, C.1. (subscription required for
   full article)
   [77]http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-secure29nov29.story

Fair Use Tools Banned

   We are entering an era where books, music and movies will increasingly
   be copy-protected and otherwise restricted by technological means.
   Whether scholars, researchers, commentators and the public will
   continue to be able to make legitimate fair uses of these works will
   depend upon the availability of tools to bypass these digital locks.

   The DMCAs anti-circumvention provisions, however, prohibit the
   creation or distribution of these tools, even if they are crucial to
   fair use. So, as copyright owners use technology to press into the
   21st century, the public will see more and more fair uses whittled
   away by digital locks allegedly intended to prevent piracy. Perhaps
   more importantly, no future fair uses will be developedafter all,
   before the VCR, who could have imagined that fair use time-shifting of
   television would become common-place for the average consumer?

   Copyright owners argue that these tools, in the hands of copyright
   infringers, can result in Internet piracy. But the traditional answer
   for piracy under copyright law has been to seek out and prosecute the
   infringers, not to ban the tools that enable fair use. After all,
   photocopiers, VCRs, and CD-R burners can also be misused, but no one
   would suggest that the public give them up simply because they might
   be used by others to break the law.

DeCSS, DVD Copy Plus and DVD CopyWare

   Fair use tools have already been yanked off the market. In the
   Universal v. Reimerdes case, discussed above, the court held that
   Section 1201 bans DeCSS software. This software decrypts DVD movies,
   making it possible to copy them to a PC. In another case, 321 Studios
   LLC has filed a declaratory judgment action in San Francisco after
   being threatened with DMCA liability by the MPAA for distributing DVD
   Copy Plus, which enables DVD owners to make copies of DVD content. The
   major motion picture studios have since counter-sued, alleging that
   DVD copying tools violate the DMCA.

   In a separate case, studios Paramount Pictures and Twentieth Century
   Fox have used the DMCA to sue Tritton Technologies, the manufacturer
   of DVD CopyWare, and three website distributors of other software that
   consumers can use to make a copy of the DVDs they have purchased.

   There are many legitimate reasons to copy DVDs. Once the video is on
   the PC, for example, lots of fair uses become possiblefilm scholars
   can digitally analyze the film, travelers can load the movie into
   their laptops, and parents can fast-forward through the unskippable
   commercials that preface certain films. Without the tools necessary to
   copy DVDs, however, these fair uses become impossible.

   Matthew Mirapaul, Theyll Always Have Paris (and the Web), N.Y. Times
   at E2, March 16, 2002.

   Lisa Bowman, Hollywood Targets DVD- Copying Upstart, CNET News, Dec.
   20, 2002.

   [78]http://news.com.com/2100-1023-978580.html

   Paramount Pictures Corporation et al v. Tritton Technologies Inc. et
   al, No. CV 03-7316 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept.17, 2003).

Advanced e-Book Processor and e-Books

   The future of fair use for books was at issue in the criminal
   prosecution of Dmitry Sklyarov and ElcomSoft. As discussed above,
   ElcomSoft produced and distributed a tool called the Advanced e-Book
   Processor, which translates e-books from Adobes e-Book format to
   Adobes Portable Document Format (PDF). This translation process
   removes the various restrictions (against copying, printing,
   text-to-speech processing, etc.) that publishers can impose on
   e-Books. The program is designed to work only with e-Books that have
   been lawfully purchased from sales outlets.

   The Advanced e-Book Processor allowed those who have legitimately
   purchased e-Books to make fair uses of their e-Books, which would
   otherwise not be possible with the current Adobe e-Book format. For
   instance, the program allows people to engage in the following
   activities, all of which are fair uses:

          read it on a laptop or computer other than the one on which
   the e-Book was first downloaded;

          continue to access a work in the future, if the particular
   technological device for which the e-Book was purchased becomes
   obsolete;

          print an e-Book on paper;

          read an e-Book on an alternative operating system such as
   Linux (Adobe's format works only on Macs and Windows PCs);

          have a computer read an e-Book out loud using text-to-speech
   software, which is particularly important for visually-impaired
   individuals.

   EFF, Frequently Asked Questions re U.S. v. Sklyarov.

   [79]http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Sklyarov/us_v_sklyarov_faq.html

Time-shifting and Streaming Media

   As more consumers receive audio and video content from streaming
   Internet media sources, they will demand tools to preserve their
   settled fair use expectations, including the ability to time-shift
   programming for later listening or viewing. As a result of the DMCA,
   however, the digital equivalents of VCRs and cassette decks for
   streaming media may never arrive.

   Start-up software company Streambox developed exactly such a product,
   known simply as the Streambox VCR, designed to time-shift streaming
   media. When competitor RealNetworks discovered that Streambox had
   developed a competing streaming media player, it invoked the DMCA and
   obtained an injunction against the Streambox VCR product.

   RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 WL 127311 (W.D. Wash. Jan.
   18, 2000).

   The DMCA has also been invoked to threaten the developer of an open
   source, noncommercial software application known as Streamripper that
   records MP3 audio streams for later listening.

   Cease and desist letter from Kenneth Plevan on behalf of Live365.com
   to John Clegg, developer of Streamripper, April 26, 2001.

   [80]http://streamripper.sourceforge.net/dc.php

embed and Fonts

   In January 2002, typeface vendor Agfa Monotype Corporation threatened
   a college student with DMCA liability for creating embed, a free, open
   source, noncommercial software program designed to manipulate TrueType
   fonts.

   According to the student: I wrote embed in 1997, after discovering
   that all of my fonts disallowed embedding in documents. Since my fonts
   are free, this was sillybut I didn't want to take the time to change
   the flag, and then reset all of the extended font properties with a
   separate program. What a bore! Instead, I wrote this program to
   convert all of my fonts at once. The program is very simple; it just
   requires setting a few bits to zero. Indeed, I noticed that other
   fonts that were licensed for unlimited distribution also disallowed
   embedding. So, I put this program on the web in hopes that it would
   help other font developers as well.

   Agfa Monotype nevertheless threatened the student author with DMCA
   liability for distributing the program. According to Agfa, the fact
   that embed can be used to allow distribution of protected fonts makes
   it contraband under Section 1201, notwithstanding the fact that the
   tool has many legitimate uses in the hands of hobbyist font
   developers.

   Tom Murphy, embed: DMCA Threats.
   [81]http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~twm/embed/dmca.html

   Cease and Desist letter sent by Agfa.
   [82]http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=264

5.   A threat to innovation and competition

   The DMCA is being used to hinder the efforts of legitimate competitors
   to create interoperable products.

   For example, Vivendi-Universal's Blizzard video game division invoked
   the DMCA in an effort to intimidate the developers of a software
   product derived from legitimate reverse engineering. Sony has used the
   DMCA to threaten hobbyists who created competing software for Sonys
   Aibo robot dog, as well as to sue makers of software that permits the
   playing of Playstation games on PCs. In each of these cases, the DMCA
   was used to deter a marketplace competitor, rather than to battle
   piracy.

Lexmark Sues Over Toner Cartridges

   Lexmark, the second-largest printer vendor in the U.S., has long tried
   to eliminate aftermarket laser printer toner vendors that offer toner
   cartridges to consumers at prices below Lexmarks. In January 2003,
   Lexmark employed the DMCA as a new weapon in its arsenal. Lexmark
   obtained a DMCA injunction banning printer microchip manufacturer
   Static Control Components from selling chips it claimed were
   technology which circumvented certain authentication routines between
   Lexmark toner cartridges and printers.

   Lexmark added these authentication routines explicitly to hinder
   aftermarket toner vendors. Static Control reverse-engineered these
   measures and sold Smartek chips that enabled aftermarket cartridges to
   work in Lexmark printers. Lexmark used the DMCA to obtain an
   injunction banning Static Control from selling its reverse-engineered
   chips to cartridge remanufacturers.[83][8] Static Control has appealed
   that decision and countered by filing an anti-trust lawsuit. Whatever
   the merits of Lexmarks position, it is fair to say that eliminating
   the laser printer toner aftermarket was not what Congress had in mind
   when enacting the DMCA.

   Declan McCullagh, Lexmark Invokes DMCA in Toner Suit, CNET News, Jan.
   8, 2003.
   [84]http://news.com.com/2100-1023-979791.html

   Steve Seidenberg, Copyright Owners Sue Competitors, NATIONAL LAW
   JOURNAL, Feb. 17, 2003.
   [85]http://www.nlj.com/business/020303bizlede.shtml

Chamberlain Sues Universal Garage Door Opener Manufacturer

   Garage door opener manufacturer Chamberlain Group invoked the DMCA
   against competitor Skylink Technologies after several major U.S.
   retailers dropped Chamberlains remote openers in favor of the less
   expensive Skylink universal clickers.[86][9] Chamberlain claimed that
   Skylinks interoperable clicker violates the DMCA by bypassing an
   authentication regime between the Chamberlain remote opener and the
   mounted garage door receiver unit.

   Skylink reverse engineered the algorithm used by the garage door
   receivers computer program. Skylinks transmitter sends three static
   codes which trigger a resynchronization function and open the garage
   door. Even though the Skylink clicker does not use the rolling code
   sent by the Chamberlain transmitter, Chamberlain claims that it
   bypasses its authentication routine to use the computer program that
   controls the doors motor. On this view, a consumer who replaced his
   lost or damaged Chamberlain clicker with one of Skylinks cheaper
   universal clickers would not be allowed to access his own garage. The
   same argument would apply equally to ban universal remote controls for
   televisions.

   Although Skylink defeated Chamberlain on a motion for summary
   judgment, Chamberlain has sought to ban the import and sale of Skylink
   clickers into the U.S. by filing a simultaneous lawsuit against
   Skylink and the clickers Chinese manufacturer in the International
   Trade Commission. Whatever the outcome of that suit, it is clear that
   in enacting the DMCA, Congress did not intend to give copyright owners
   the right to veto the creation of interoperable, non-copyrightable
   goods and technologies.

   Steve Seidenberg, Suits Test Limits of Digital Copyright Act, National
   Law Journal, February 7, 2003:
   [87]http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1044059435217

   Katie Dean, Lexmark: New Fuel for DMCA Foes,Wired, March 6, 2003:
   [88]http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,57907-2,00.html

Sony Sues Connectix and Bleem

   Since the DMCAs enactment in 1998, Sony has used DMCA litigation to
   pressure competitors who created software that would allow PC owners
   to play games intended for the Sony Playstation video game console. In
   1999, Sony sued Connectix Corporation, the manufacturer of the Virtual
   Game Station, an emulator program which allowed Sony Playstation games
   to be played on Apple Macintosh computers. Sony also sued Bleem, the
   leading vendor of Playstation emulator software for Windows PCs.

   In both cases, Sony claimed, then subsequently withdrew circumvention
   violations against Sony competitors that had created their products by
   engaging in legitimate reverse engineering, which has been recognized
   as noninfringing fair use in a series of Ninth Circuit cases.
   Connectix, in fact, ultimately won a Ninth Circuit ruling that its
   reverse engineering was indeed fair use.[89][10] Both Connectix and
   Bleem, however, were unable to bear the high costs of litigation
   against Sony and ultimately were forced to pull their products off the
   market. Whatever the merits of Sonys position may have been under
   copyright, trademark, patent, or other legal theories, the competitive
   efforts of Connectix and Bleem certainly were at a far remove from the
   black box piracy devices that Congress meant to target with section
   1201.

   Pamela Samuelson, Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy: Why
   the Anti-Circumvention Regulations Need to be Revised, 14 Berkeley
   Technology L.J. 519, 556 (1999) (discussing the Connectix case).
   [90]http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers.html

   Testimony of Jonathan Hangartner on behalf of Bleem, Library of
   Congress, Hearing on DMCA, Stanford University, May 19, 2000, pp.
   221-28.
   [91]http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/hearings/1201-519.pdf

Sony Threatens Aibo Hobbyist

   Sony has also invoked the DMCA against a hobbyist who developed custom
   programs for Sonys Aibo robotic pet dog. The hobbyist cracked the
   encryption surrounding the source code that manipulates the Aibo to
   reverse engineer programs that allow owners to customize voice
   recognition by their Aibos. The hobbyist revealed neither the
   decrypted source code nor the code he used to defeat the encryption,
   freely distributed his custom programs, and made no profit.
   Nevertheless, Sony claimed that the act of circumventing the
   encryption surrounding the source code violated the DMCA and demanded
   that the hobbyist remove his programs from his website.

   Responding to public outcry, Sony ultimately permitted the hobbyist to
   repost some of his programs (on the understanding that Sony will have
   the rights of commercial development in the programs). The incident,
   however, illustrated Sonys willingness to invoke the DMCA in
   situations with no relationship to piracy.

   David Labrador, "Teaching Robot Dogs New Tricks,"Scientific American,
   Feb. 12, 2002.
   [92]http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2002/012102aibo/

Blizzard Sues bnetd.org

   Section 1201 has been invoked in a federal lawsuit by
   Vivendi-Universal's Blizzard Entertainment video game division against
   a group of volunteer game enthusiasts who used reverse engineering to
   create free and open source software to allow owners of Blizzard games
   to play the games over the Internet. The software, a server called
   "bnetd," provides an alternative to Blizzard's own Battle.net servers.

   Both Battle.net servers and bnetd servers are available for free and
   both allow owners of Blizzard games to play with each other across the
   Internet. The group of volunteers decided to create bnetd to overcome
   difficulties that they had experienced in attempting to use
   Battle.net. The bnetd software is freely distributed, open source, and
   non-commercial.

   Blizzard filed suit in St. Louis to bar distribution of bnetd,
   alleging that the software is a circumvention device that violates the
   DMCA. According to Blizzard, the bnetd software has been used by some
   to permit networked play of pirated Blizzard games. Whether or not
   that is true, the developers are not using the software for that
   purpose, nor was the software designed for that purpose. The software
   has numerous legitimate uses for owners of Blizzard games. Whatever
   else may be said about the bnetd software, it is plainly not a black
   box piracy device. (EFF is representing the bnetd developers.)

   Howard Wen, Battle.net Goes To War,Salon, April 18, 2002.[93]
   http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/18/bnetd/

   EFF case archive.
   [94]http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/

Sony Attacks Playstation Mod Chips

   Apart from using the DMCA against vendors of personal computer
   emulators of Sonys Playstation, Sony has sued a number of
   manufacturers of so-called mod chips for alleged circumvention under
   the DMCA. In doing so, Sony has been able to enforce a system of
   geographical regional restrictions that raises significant
   anticompetitive issues.

   So-called mod chips are after-market accessories that modify
   Playstation consoles to permit games legitimately purchased in one
   part of the world to be played on a games console from another
   geographical region. Sony has sued mod chip manufacturers in the U.S.,
   the U.K., and Australia. In the U.S., Sony sued Gamemasters, Inc.,
   distributor of the Game Enhancer peripheral device, which allowed U.S.
   Playstation users to play games purchased in Japan and other
   countries. Although there was no infringement of Sonys copyright, the
   court granted an injunction under the DMCAs anti-circumvention
   provisions, effectively banning the use of a technology that would
   permit users to use legitimately-purchased non-infringing games from
   other regions.

   Recognizing the anti-competitive potential of the region playback
   control system, the Australian anti-trust authority, the Australian
   Consumers and Competition Commission intervened in a case Sony
   ultimately won against an Australian mod chip manufacturer under the
   Australian equivalent of the DMCAs anti-circumvention provisions.

   Sony has argued that mod chips can also be used to enable the use of
   unauthorized copies of Playstation games. But most Playstation mod
   chips are not black box devices suitable only for piracy. The
   potential illegitimate uses must be weighed against legitimate uses,
   such as defeating Sonys region coding system to play games purchased
   in other countries.

   Sony Playstation ruling sets far-reaching precedent,New Scientist,
   Feb. 22, 2002
   [95]http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991933

   Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. v. Gamemasters, 87 F.Supp.2d
   976 (N.D. Cal. 1999).

   David Becker, Sony Loses Australian Copyright Case, CNET News, July
   26, 2002. [96]http://news.com.com/2100-1040-946640.html

Apple Harasses Inventive Retailer

   When Other World Computing (OWC), a small retailer specializing in
   Apple Macintosh computers, developed a software patch that allowed all
   Mac owners to use Apples iDVD software, they thought they were doing
   Apples fans a favor. For their trouble, they got a DMCA threat from
   Apple.

   Apples iDVD authoring software was designed to work on newer Macs that
   shipped with internal DVD recorders manufactured by Apple. OWC
   discovered that a minor software modification would allow iDVD to work
   with external DVD recorders, giving owners of older Macs an upgrade
   path. Apple claimed that this constituted a violation of the DMCA and
   requested that OWC stop this practice immediately. OWC obliged.

   Rather than prevent copyright infringement, the DMCA empowered Apple
   to force consumers to buy new Mac computers instead of simply
   upgrading their older machines with an external DVD recorder.

   Declan McCullagh Apple: Burn DVDsand Well Burn You, CNET News, Aug.
   28, 2002.
   [97]http://news.com.com/2100-1023-955805.html

6.   DMCA becomes general purpose ban on computer network access

   In a different type of misuse, the DMCAs anti-circumvention provisions
   have recently been utilized as a general-purpose prohibition on
   computer network access. Several federal anti-hacking statutes already
   protect computer network owners from unauthorized intrusions. These
   include the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Wiretap Act, and the
   Electronic Communications Privacy Act. In addition, the common law
   doctrine of trespass to chattels has also been widely used for this
   purpose. However, unlike each of these regimes which seek to balance
   important public policy goals by only outlawing behavior that meets
   certain conditions and causes significant financial harm to computer
   owners, the DMCA contains no financial damage threshold.

   Given the very specific existing statutory regimes that regulate this
   type of behavior, it is clear that Congress did not intend that the
   DMCA would be used in this way to create a new and absolute
   prohibition on accessing computer networks in the absence of any type
   of copyrighted work.

Disgruntled Ex-employer Sues For Unauthorized Network Access

   In April 2003, an automated stock trading company sued a former
   contract programmer under the DMCA, claiming that his access to the
   companys computer system over a password-protected Virtual Private
   Network tunnel connection was an act of circumvention. Pearl
   Investments had employed the programmer to create a software module
   for its software system. In order to complete the work remotely, the
   programmer connected a separate server to the companys server, to
   which he connected from a VPN tunnel from his office. Although the
   contractor created a very successful software module for the company,
   the relationship turned frosty after the company ran into financial
   difficulties and terminated the contractors contract.

   The company sued the contractor when it discovered the contractors
   server connected to the its system, claiming electronic trespass,
   violation of the anti-hacker legislation, the Computer Fraud and Abuse
   Act (CFAA) and violation of the DMCAs anti-circumvention provisions.
   Pearl claimed that it had taken away the authorization it had
   previously given to the contractor to access its system through the
   password-protected VPN and that the VPN connection was therefore
   unauthorized. The Court rejected the companys electronic trespass and
   CFAA claims due to lack of evidence of any actual damage done. Even
   though the second server was not being used by the programmer at the
   time, and its hard drive had been accidentally wiped, the court agreed
   with Pearl that the existence of the VPN was a prohibited
   circumvention of a technological protection measure that controlled
   access to a system which contained copyrighted software.

   As the DMCA has no harm threshold, the anti-circumvention provisions
   are open to misuse by unscrupulous companies who seek to avoid paying
   former employees or contractors by revoking authority previously
   granted and then alleging circumvention.

   Pearl Investments LLC v. Standard I/O, Inc., 257 F. Supp. 2d 326
   (D.Me., April 23, 2003).

7.   Conclusion

   Five years of experience with the anti-circumvention provisions of the
   DMCA demonstrate that the statute reaches too far, chilling a wide
   variety of legitimate activities in ways Congress did not intend. As
   an increasing number of copyright works are wrapped in technological
   protection measures, it is likely that the DMCAs anti-circumvention
   provisions will be applied in further unforeseen contexts, hindering
   the legitimate activities of innovators, researchers, the press, and
   the public at large.

   EFF would like to thank the following individuals who have helped to
   create and update this publication:
   the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic, Deirdre
   Mulligan, Nicky Ozer, and Nicolai Nielsen.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [98][1] For examples of Congress stated purpose in enacting the DMCAs
   anti-circumvention provisions, see 144 Cong. Rec. H7093, H7094-5 (Aug.
   4, 1998); Senate Judiciary Comm., S. Rep. 105-190 (1998) at 29;
   Judiciary Comm., H. Rep. 105-551 Pt 1 (1998) at 18; House Commerce
   Comm., H. Rep. 105-551 Pt 2 (1998) at 38.

   [99][2] See WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act and Online
   Copyright Liability Limitation Act: Hearing on H.R. 2281 and H.R. 2280
   before the House Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Prop., 105th
   Cong., 1st sess. (Sept. 16, 1997) at 62 (testimony of Asst. Sec. of
   Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Bruce A. Lehman
   admitting that section 1201 went beyond the requirements of the WIPO
   Copyright Treaty).

   [100][3] For a full description of the events leading up to the
   enactment of the DMCA, see Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright 89-150
   (2000).

   [101][4] See Pamela Samuelson, Intellectual Property and the Digital
   Economy: Why the Anti-Circumvention Regulations Need to be Revised, 14
   Berkeley Technology L.J. 519, 537-57 (1999)
   ([102]http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers.html)

   [103][5] See Professor Ross Anderson, Cambridge University,
   Declaration in Felten v. RIAA (Oct. 22, 2001), describing ways in
   which the DCMA is suppressing research into security weaknesses in
   SDMI watermarking technology:
   ([104]http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/Felten_v_RIAA/20011022_anderson_decl.
   pdf).

   [105][6] Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees, 24 F.Supp.2d 552
   (E.D.Va, 1998).

   [106][7] 111 F. Supp. 2d. 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), affd 273 F.3d 429 (2d
   Cir. 2001).

   [107][8] Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components,
   Inc., (E.D. Ky Civil Action No. 02-571 KSF, unreported decision,
   February 27, 2003), available at EFFs website at:
   [108]http://www.eff.org/Cases/Lexmark_v_Static_Controls/

   [109][9] The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc.,
   (N.D. Ill., Civil Action No. 02 C 6376). Complaint, Plaintiffs Motion
   for Summary Judgment and Defendants Opposition to Motion for Summary
   Judgment, available at EFFs website at:
   [110]http://www.eff.org/Cases/Chamberlain_v_Skylink/

   [111][10] Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corporation,
   203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000).

   [112]HOME | [113]ISSUES | [114]CASES | [115]GET INVOLVED | [116]PRESS
   ROOM | [117]JOIN THE EFF | [118]ABOUT THE EFF | [119]DONATE |
   [120]VOLUNTEER | [121]PRIVACY POLICY

References

   Visible links
   1. http://www.eff.org/copyr.html
  42. http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/4750224.htm
  43. http://www.boston.com/globe/search/
  44. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/293/5537/2028
  45. http://cryptome.org/sdmi-attack.htm
  46. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-947325.html
  47. http://news.com.com/2100-1028-996836.html
  48. http://news.com.com/2008-1082-996787.html
  49. http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31406.html
  50. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/technology/circuits/10xbox.html
  52. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html
  53. http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/hearings/schedule.html
  54. http://archive.aclu.org/issues/cyber/Edelman_N2H2_feature.html
  55. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/30/opinion/30LESS.html
  56. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-978176.html
  57. http://www.macfergus.com/niels/dmca/cia.html
  58. http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/Felten_v_RIAA/20010813_ferguson_decl.html
  59. http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6886574.html
  60. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-272716.html
  61. http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/innovation11101.asp
  62. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns00001063
  63. http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/Felten_v_RIAA/20010813_cox_decl.html
  64. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/10/technology/10WARN.html?searchpv=past7days
  65. http://www.ieee.org/newsinfo/dmca.html
  66. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992169
  68. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/04/technology/04CYBERLAW.html
  69. http://www.technologyreview.com/magazine/jul01/garfinkel.asp
  70. http://news.com.com/2010-1028-978636.html
  71. http://www.thenewrepublic.com/cyberspace/cohen052300.html
  72. http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6249739.html
  73. http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20030507104823670#comments
  74. http://news.com.com/2010-1078-825335.html
  75. http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/2658555.htm
  76. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-835841.html
  77. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-secure29nov29.story
  78. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-978580.html
  79. http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Sklyarov/us_v_sklyarov_faq.html
  80. http://streamripper.sourceforge.net/dc.php
  81. http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~twm/embed/dmca.html
  82. http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=264
  84. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-979791.html
  85. http://www.nlj.com/business/020303bizlede.shtml
  87. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1044059435217
  88. http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,57907-2,00.html
  90. http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers.html
  91. http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/hearings/1201-519.pdf
  92. http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2002/012102aibo/
  93. http://news.com.com/2100-1040-858414.html
  94. http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/
  95. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991933
  96. http://news.com.com/2100-1040-946640.html
  97. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-955805.html
 102. http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers.html
 104. http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/Felten_v_RIAA/20011022_anderson_decl.pdf
 108. http://www.eff.org/Cases/Lexmark_v_Static_Controls/
 110. http://www.eff.org/Cases/Chamberlain_v_Skylink/