iPhone unlocking, video game protection hacking: made legal

[Sasqui]

This is VERY interesting:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_wguy/ytech_wguy_tc3236

<snip>
In addition to the jailbreaking exemption, the FCC announced a few oth er rules that have less sweeping applicability but are still significant:

• Professors, students and documentary filmmakers are now allowed, for “noncommercial” purposes, to break the copy protection measures on DVDs to be used in classroom or other not-for-profit environments. This doesn’t quite go so far as to grant you and me the right to copy a DVD so we can watch it in two rooms of the house, but it’s now only one step away.

• As was the topic in the GE ruling I wrote about, the FCC allows computer owners to bypass dongles (hardware devices used in conjunction with software to guarantee the correct owner is behind the keyboard) if they are no longer in operation and can’t be replaced. Dongles are rarities in consumer technology products now, but industrial users are probably thrilled about this, as many go missing and are now impossible to obtain.

• Finally, people are now free to circumvent protection measures on video games — but, strangely, only to investigate and correct security flaws in those games. (Another oddity: Other computer software is not part of this ruling, just video games.)
</snip>

[AlienIsGOD]

I read about that this morning too. Good for the USA, but AFAIK this has no impact on Canadian Laws.

[Sasqui]

Originally Posted by AlienIsGOD

I read about that this morning too. Good for the USA, but AFAIK this has no impact on Canadian Laws.

I thought you were free to do anything in Canada

I'm really surprised by this. The DRM folks have lobbied hard for years to prevent these kind of FCC rulings. Must read more about the details.

[streetfighter 2]

This is a decision made by the Librarian of Congress pursuant to Section 1201(a)(1) of the DMCA. It has ramifications which partly include the FCC but in no way is it a result of a FCC rulings vis-à-vis circuit courts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/te...ref=technology

My original post:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpo...46&postcount=2

Now I may be a simple country hyper-chicken but I get a little concerned when agencies that do not have the power to make or change laws are suddenly doing just that. The yahoo article appears to be erroneous.

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

repost

http://techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127399

[Sasqui]

Originally Posted by streetfighter 2

This is a decision made by the Librarian of Congress pursuant to Section 1201(a)(1) of the DMCA. It has ramifications which partly include the FCC but in no way is it a result of a FCC rulings vis-à-vis circuit courts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/te...ref=technology

My original post:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpo...46&postcount=2

Now I may be a simple country hyper-chicken but I get a little concerned when agencies that do not have the power to make or change laws are suddenly doing just that. The yahoo article appears to be erroneous.

Thanks, the NY Times is much more succinct, it's the Library of Congress issuing an interpretation (exception):
"The Library of Congress, which has the power to define exceptions to an important copyright law, said on Monday that it was legal to bypass a phone’s controls on what software it will run to get “lawfully obtained” "

Yahoo blows.

Originally Posted by [I.R.A]_FBi

repost

http://techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127399

Sorry!

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by streetfighter 2

Now I may be a simple country hyper-chicken but I get a little concerned when agencies that do not have the power to make or change laws are suddenly doing just that. The yahoo article appears to be erroneous.

The Library of Congress was granted power when the DMCA was written to make changes if deemed neccessary every three years. It's been like this since it came out; only now are the changes sweeping eenough to make news.

[Kreij]

The Library of Congress is an agency of the legislative branch of the US government. One of the Library's resources is the Copyright Office.

Here is the statement released by the Librarian of Congess (head of the LOC) regarding these rules.

[streetfighter 2]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

The Library of Congress was granted power when the DMCA was written to make changes if deemed neccessary every three years. It's been like this since it came out; only now are the changes sweeping eenough to make news.

True that. My last statement was referring to the FCC not being able to modify the DMCA without a highly publicized trip to a circuit court. This was the impression I got from the yahoo article which said this was a ruling of the FCC.

https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/d.../RM-2008-8.pdf
That's the full order as hosted by the EFF, who made the initial request to the Register of Copyrights.

The basis for the exemptions is from Section 1201(a)(1)(B) of the DMCA which is summarized by the Librarian of Congress:

It provides that the prohibition against circumvention shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding threeyear period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title as determined in rulemaking

Here's the bit about video games and why they've been exempted:

Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological
protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when
circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for,
investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:

-The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to
promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or
computer network; and

-The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained
in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of
applicable law.

Unfortunately though only games because:

Professor J. Alex Halderman proposed two classes of works relating to
investigating and correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities created or
exploited by technological measures protecting certain kinds of works. The
Register concludes that Halderman has made the case for a class pertaining to
video games, but has not made the case for a broader class pertaining to
literary works, sound recordings and audiovisual works.

The case Professor Halderman laid out was because of invasive DRM which exploited security flaws in Windows and/or was not investigated by security researchers because of fear of breaking the law. He mentioned Macrovision Safedisc, Securom and to a lesser extent the Sony Rootkit,.

[W1zzard]

the spam filter flagged your post, i manually approved it

[Sasqui]

THX, W1zzard

Originally Posted by streetfighter 2

-The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

I should've quoted your entire post, but that sums it up. I guess we can all start working on our security doctorates, eh?

From what I've read, there are good intentions behind it... even if it's from our own government!

[Kreij]

Originally Posted by Sasqui

From what I've read, there are good intentions behind it... even if it's from our own government!

Crap .. that can only mean one thing ...

[streetfighter 2]

It's really a shame that a consumer still doesn't have the right to bypass a faulty protection scheme. Take for example the release of Splinter Cell Conviction which was (I believe) the first game to feature Ubisoft's new "constant-connection" DRM. Apparently, or so I'm told, some intrepid piracy activists, devoid of any logic, DDoS'd the Ubisoft DRM servers thus preventing anyone who lawfully purchased the game from playing it. I believe this to be an imperative example of an adverse effect to noninfringing use of a copyrighted work.

Unfortunately though, the reason why this is not exempted (or at least what I believe to be the reason) is because software is licensed and you don't actually own it. And, as per your license agreement, your right to play the game and/or install it can be retracted at any time.

This sentiment is echoed in the iphone ruling. Though you can legally jailbreak your iphone Apple is still allowed to disable your iphone through updates if they want to (and they sure as hell will!).

So basically Ubisoft (and everyone else like them) is well protected whilst giving a huge middle finger to their customers. Which is why I don't buy Ubisoft games anymore and I closely watch the DRM status of all the games I buy.