![]() ![]() It is the government that is forbidden from punishing speech not the government that must be party to the speech else free speech would have nearly zero meaning. > as far as I understood recently about US is that the speech is protected between the citizen and the government, not between civil entities, as business/corps and citizenįree speech by anyone to anyone is protected from government restriction. It's not a lie, the DMCA 1201 exception process is just hilariously toothless. In this case, the law does not facilitate any fair use argumentation whatsoever. That's the sort of question a court might have to interpret if someone was a bit more careful than, say, publishing the DRM unlock straight onto GitHub. This is the sort of violation being alleged here.ĭepending on how you look at it, either Congress assumed a black market would exist for DRM circumvention technology anyway or they assumed people who need lawful circumvention would in-house everything and destroy it when they no longer needed it. GITHUB REVERSES DMCA TAKEDOWN CODE ANIME HOW TOYou can't tell anyone how to circumvent DRM, regardless of purpose. You can't circumvent DRM, unless for specific purposes.Ģ. Section 1201 renders two different acts illegal:ġ. This is because DMCA 1201 circumvention exceptions only apply to half of the law. Even if there was, it would not materially impact the legal status of this DMCA 512 takedown request If there was, DMCA 1201 would have zero legal weight.Ģ. There is no general exception for format shifting. So, the thing about circumvention exceptions is that.ġ. Has anyone ever been held legally responsible for a bad-faith DMCA takedown request? Don't think I've seen it. Or fangs added, in the "perjury" category for entities that send out bad faith takedowns for code that they don't like. All in all, the DMCA needs some fangs pulled. Ignoring the entire issue with the fact that there probably wasn't any copyrighted material in the repo to begin with and that code is speech, and speech is protected in the US - in other words, taking the most charitable (for corporations) interpretation of the DMCA and assuming that neither of those holds true, a fair use provision still should hold!Ĭircumvention for purposes of transposing your media to a different platform (time-shifting, archival) are already explicitly allowed per USC and rulings (if I'm not mistaken). This is always a fucking lie, and I wish we (as a community) would band together to make it more painful for giant companies to just spam DMCA takedowns as part of their DRM strategy. I have taken fair use into consideration. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |