#section-1201 — Public Fediverse posts

Suno & Udio Sound Fair Use Alarm in Yout vs. RIAA YouTube-Ripper Appeal

https://torrentfreak.com/suno-udio-wade-into-youtube-ripper-circumvention-lawsuit-appeal-251008/

#anti-circumvention #AppsandSites #section1201 #Lawsuits #Yout.com #YoutLLC #sunoai #udioai #DMCA #RIAA

Suno & Udio Sound Fair Use Alarm in Yout vs. RIAA YouTube-Ripper Appeal

https://torrentfreak.com/suno-udio-wade-into-youtube-ripper-circumvention-lawsuit-appeal-251008/

#anti-circumvention #AppsandSites #section1201 #Lawsuits #Yout.com #YoutLLC #sunoai #udioai #DMCA #RIAA

Suno & Udio Sound Fair Use Alarm in Yout vs. RIAA YouTube-Ripper Appeal

https://torrentfreak.com/suno-udio-wade-into-youtube-ripper-circumvention-lawsuit-appeal-251008/

#anti-circumvention #AppsandSites #section1201 #Lawsuits #Yout.com #YoutLLC #sunoai #udioai #DMCA #RIAA

Suno & Udio Sound Fair Use Alarm in Yout vs. RIAA YouTube-Ripper Appeal

https://torrentfreak.com/suno-udio-wade-into-youtube-ripper-circumvention-lawsuit-appeal-251008/

#anti-circumvention #AppsandSites #section1201 #Lawsuits #Yout.com #YoutLLC #sunoai #udioai #DMCA #RIAA

Suno & Udio Sound Fair Use Alarm in Yout vs. RIAA YouTube-Ripper Appeal

https://torrentfreak.com/suno-udio-wade-into-youtube-ripper-circumvention-lawsuit-appeal-251008/

#anti-circumvention #AppsandSites #section1201 #Lawsuits #Yout.com #YoutLLC #sunoai #udioai #DMCA #RIAA

"The point is that hiding secrets in devices that belong to your adversaries is very bad security practice. No matter how good a bank safe is, the bank keeps it in its vault – not in the bank-robber's basement workshop.

For a hiding-secrets-in-your-adversaries'-device plan to work, the manufacturer has to make zero mistakes. The adversary – a competitor, a tinkerer, a grad student – only has to find one mistake and exploit it. This is a bedrock of security theory: attackers have an inescapable advantage.

So I think that DRM doesn't work. I think DRM is a legal construct, not a technical one. I think DRM is a kind of magic Saran Wrap that manufacturers can wrap around their products, and, in so doing, make it a literal jailable offense to use those products in otherwise legal ways that their shareholders don't like. As Jay Freeman put it, using DRM creates a new law called "Felony Contempt of Business Model." It's a law that has never been passed by any legislature, but is nevertheless enforceable.

In the 25 years I've been fighting anticircumvention laws, I've spoken to many government officials from all over the world about the opportunity that repealing their anticircumvention laws represents. After all, Apple makes $100b/year by gouging app makers for 30 cents on ever dollar. Allow your domestic tech sector to sell the tools to jailbreak iPhones and install third party app stores, and you can convert Apple's $100b/year to a $100m/year business for one of your own companies, and the other $999,900,000,000 will be returned to the world's iPhone owners as a consumer surplus."

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/14/pregnable/#checkm8

#DRM #DMCA #Section1201 #AnticircumventionLaws #Interoperability #Hacking #Jailbreaking #IP #Copyright #Encryption

"The point is that hiding secrets in devices that belong to your adversaries is very bad security practice. No matter how good a bank safe is, the bank keeps it in its vault – not in the bank-robber's basement workshop.

For a hiding-secrets-in-your-adversaries'-device plan to work, the manufacturer has to make zero mistakes. The adversary – a competitor, a tinkerer, a grad student – only has to find one mistake and exploit it. This is a bedrock of security theory: attackers have an inescapable advantage.

So I think that DRM doesn't work. I think DRM is a legal construct, not a technical one. I think DRM is a kind of magic Saran Wrap that manufacturers can wrap around their products, and, in so doing, make it a literal jailable offense to use those products in otherwise legal ways that their shareholders don't like. As Jay Freeman put it, using DRM creates a new law called "Felony Contempt of Business Model." It's a law that has never been passed by any legislature, but is nevertheless enforceable.

In the 25 years I've been fighting anticircumvention laws, I've spoken to many government officials from all over the world about the opportunity that repealing their anticircumvention laws represents. After all, Apple makes $100b/year by gouging app makers for 30 cents on ever dollar. Allow your domestic tech sector to sell the tools to jailbreak iPhones and install third party app stores, and you can convert Apple's $100b/year to a $100m/year business for one of your own companies, and the other $999,900,000,000 will be returned to the world's iPhone owners as a consumer surplus."

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/14/pregnable/#checkm8

#DRM #DMCA #Section1201 #AnticircumventionLaws #Interoperability #Hacking #Jailbreaking #IP #Copyright #Encryption

"The point is that hiding secrets in devices that belong to your adversaries is very bad security practice. No matter how good a bank safe is, the bank keeps it in its vault – not in the bank-robber's basement workshop.

For a hiding-secrets-in-your-adversaries'-device plan to work, the manufacturer has to make zero mistakes. The adversary – a competitor, a tinkerer, a grad student – only has to find one mistake and exploit it. This is a bedrock of security theory: attackers have an inescapable advantage.

So I think that DRM doesn't work. I think DRM is a legal construct, not a technical one. I think DRM is a kind of magic Saran Wrap that manufacturers can wrap around their products, and, in so doing, make it a literal jailable offense to use those products in otherwise legal ways that their shareholders don't like. As Jay Freeman put it, using DRM creates a new law called "Felony Contempt of Business Model." It's a law that has never been passed by any legislature, but is nevertheless enforceable.

In the 25 years I've been fighting anticircumvention laws, I've spoken to many government officials from all over the world about the opportunity that repealing their anticircumvention laws represents. After all, Apple makes $100b/year by gouging app makers for 30 cents on ever dollar. Allow your domestic tech sector to sell the tools to jailbreak iPhones and install third party app stores, and you can convert Apple's $100b/year to a $100m/year business for one of your own companies, and the other $999,900,000,000 will be returned to the world's iPhone owners as a consumer surplus."

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/14/pregnable/#checkm8

#DRM #DMCA #Section1201 #AnticircumventionLaws #Interoperability #Hacking #Jailbreaking #IP #Copyright #Encryption

"The point is that hiding secrets in devices that belong to your adversaries is very bad security practice. No matter how good a bank safe is, the bank keeps it in its vault – not in the bank-robber's basement workshop.

For a hiding-secrets-in-your-adversaries'-device plan to work, the manufacturer has to make zero mistakes. The adversary – a competitor, a tinkerer, a grad student – only has to find one mistake and exploit it. This is a bedrock of security theory: attackers have an inescapable advantage.

So I think that DRM doesn't work. I think DRM is a legal construct, not a technical one. I think DRM is a kind of magic Saran Wrap that manufacturers can wrap around their products, and, in so doing, make it a literal jailable offense to use those products in otherwise legal ways that their shareholders don't like. As Jay Freeman put it, using DRM creates a new law called "Felony Contempt of Business Model." It's a law that has never been passed by any legislature, but is nevertheless enforceable.

In the 25 years I've been fighting anticircumvention laws, I've spoken to many government officials from all over the world about the opportunity that repealing their anticircumvention laws represents. After all, Apple makes $100b/year by gouging app makers for 30 cents on ever dollar. Allow your domestic tech sector to sell the tools to jailbreak iPhones and install third party app stores, and you can convert Apple's $100b/year to a $100m/year business for one of your own companies, and the other $999,900,000,000 will be returned to the world's iPhone owners as a consumer surplus."

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/14/pregnable/#checkm8

#DRM #DMCA #Section1201 #AnticircumventionLaws #Interoperability #Hacking #Jailbreaking #IP #Copyright #Encryption

"The point is that hiding secrets in devices that belong to your adversaries is very bad security practice. No matter how good a bank safe is, the bank keeps it in its vault – not in the bank-robber's basement workshop.

For a hiding-secrets-in-your-adversaries'-device plan to work, the manufacturer has to make zero mistakes. The adversary – a competitor, a tinkerer, a grad student – only has to find one mistake and exploit it. This is a bedrock of security theory: attackers have an inescapable advantage.

So I think that DRM doesn't work. I think DRM is a legal construct, not a technical one. I think DRM is a kind of magic Saran Wrap that manufacturers can wrap around their products, and, in so doing, make it a literal jailable offense to use those products in otherwise legal ways that their shareholders don't like. As Jay Freeman put it, using DRM creates a new law called "Felony Contempt of Business Model." It's a law that has never been passed by any legislature, but is nevertheless enforceable.

In the 25 years I've been fighting anticircumvention laws, I've spoken to many government officials from all over the world about the opportunity that repealing their anticircumvention laws represents. After all, Apple makes $100b/year by gouging app makers for 30 cents on ever dollar. Allow your domestic tech sector to sell the tools to jailbreak iPhones and install third party app stores, and you can convert Apple's $100b/year to a $100m/year business for one of your own companies, and the other $999,900,000,000 will be returned to the world's iPhone owners as a consumer surplus."

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/14/pregnable/#checkm8

#DRM #DMCA #Section1201 #AnticircumventionLaws #Interoperability #Hacking #Jailbreaking #IP #Copyright #Encryption

How an “absolutist position” seeks to block even minor copyright exemptions, and usually succeeds

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in the US in 1998, at an early stage of the shift to a digital world, with little concern for the serious harm it would cause as everything became suffused with software. The problem is that the DMCA prevents circumvention of copyright protection measures (generally known as “digital rights management”, or DRM), even if the purpose of […]

#absolutistPosition #circumvention #dmca #DRM #esa #exemptions #iceCream #ifixit #mcdonalds #publicKnowledge #rightToRepair #section1201 #usCopyrightOffice #videoGames

https://walledculture.org/how-an-absolutist-position-seeks-to-block-even-minor-copyright-exemptions-and-usually-succeeds/

How an “absolutist position” seeks to block even minor copyright exemptions, and usually succeeds

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in the US in 1998, at an early stage of the shift to a digital world, with little concern for the serious harm it would cause as everything became suffused with software. The problem is that the DMCA prevents circumvention of copyright protection measures (generally known as “digital rights management”, or DRM), even if the purpose of […]

#absolutistPosition #circumvention #dmca #DRM #esa #exemptions #iceCream #ifixit #mcdonalds #publicKnowledge #rightToRepair #section1201 #usCopyrightOffice #videoGames

https://walledculture.org/how-an-absolutist-position-seeks-to-block-even-minor-copyright-exemptions-and-usually-succeeds/

How an “absolutist position” seeks to block even minor copyright exemptions, and usually succeeds

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in the US in 1998, at an early stage of the shift to a digital world, with little concern for the serious harm it would cause as everything became suffused with software. The problem is that the DMCA prevents circumvention of copyright protection measures (generally known as “digital rights management”, or DRM), even if the purpose of […]

#absolutistPosition #circumvention #dmca #DRM #esa #exemptions #iceCream #ifixit #mcdonalds #publicKnowledge #rightToRepair #section1201 #usCopyrightOffice #videoGames

https://walledculture.org/how-an-absolutist-position-seeks-to-block-even-minor-copyright-exemptions-and-usually-succeeds/

How an “absolutist position” seeks to block even minor copyright exemptions, and usually succeeds

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in the US in 1998, at an early stage of the shift to a digital world, with little concern for the serious harm it would cause as everything became suffused with software. The problem is that the DMCA prevents circumvention of copyright protection measures (generally known as “digital rights management”, or DRM), even if the purpose of […]

#absolutistPosition #circumvention #dmca #DRM #esa #exemptions #iceCream #ifixit #mcdonalds #publicKnowledge #rightToRepair #section1201 #usCopyrightOffice #videoGames

https://walledculture.org/how-an-absolutist-position-seeks-to-block-even-minor-copyright-exemptions-and-usually-succeeds/

US government agencies demand fixable ice cream machines - Enlarge / Taylor's C709 Soft Serve Freezer isn't so much mechanically c... - https://arstechnica.com/?p=2010468 #federaltradecommission #departmentofjustice #righttorepair #section1201 #copyright #icecream #policy #repair #taylor #kytch #dmca #doj #ftc

US government agencies demand fixable ice cream machines - Enlarge / Taylor's C709 Soft Serve Freezer isn't so much mechanically c... - https://arstechnica.com/?p=2010468 #federaltradecommission #departmentofjustice #righttorepair #section1201 #copyright #icecream #policy #repair #taylor #kytch #dmca #doj #ftc

US government agencies demand fixable ice cream machines - Enlarge / Taylor's C709 Soft Serve Freezer isn't so much mechanically c... - https://arstechnica.com/?p=2010468 #federaltradecommission #departmentofjustice #righttorepair #section1201 #copyright #icecream #policy #repair #taylor #kytch #dmca #doj #ftc

US government agencies demand fixable ice cream machines - Enlarge / Taylor's C709 Soft Serve Freezer isn't so much mechanically c... - https://arstechnica.com/?p=2010468 #federaltradecommission #departmentofjustice #righttorepair #section1201 #copyright #icecream #policy #repair #taylor #kytch #dmca #doj #ftc

US government agencies demand fixable ice cream machines - Enlarge / Taylor's C709 Soft Serve Freezer isn't so much mechanically c... - https://arstechnica.com/?p=2010468 #federaltradecommission #departmentofjustice #righttorepair #section1201 #copyright #icecream #policy #repair #taylor #kytch #dmca #doj #ftc

#USA #Copyright #DMCA #Section1201 #Decentralization #IPFS: "Our client, computer scientist Mike Damm, offers a free IPFS gateway. He doesn’t control how people user it or what files they access. But a company called Jetbrains insists that that Mr. Damm could be liable under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because JetBrains’ lawyers are allegedly able to use his gateway to request and retrieve software keys for Jetbrains software from the IPFS network.

We were glad to have the opportunity to set them straight.

Section 1201 is a terrible law, but it doesn’t impose liability on a general-purpose conduit for information. First, a conduit does not fall into any of the three categories of trafficking under Section 1201: its primary purpose is not circumvention, it has extensive other uses, and it is not marketed for circumvention. Second, Congress has expressly recognized the need to protect conduits from legal risk given their crucial role in supporting the basic functioning of the internet. In Section 512(a) of the DMCA, Congress singled out conduits to receive the highest level of safe harbor protection, recognizing that the ability to dispose of copyright claims at an early stage of litigation was crucial to the operation of these services. It would be absurd to suggest that Congress granted conduits special immunity for copyright claims based on third party activity but then, in the same statute, made them liable for pseudo-copyright Section 1201 claims."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/defending-access-decentralized-web

#USA #Copyright #DMCA #Section1201 #Decentralization #IPFS: "Our client, computer scientist Mike Damm, offers a free IPFS gateway. He doesn’t control how people user it or what files they access. But a company called Jetbrains insists that that Mr. Damm could be liable under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because JetBrains’ lawyers are allegedly able to use his gateway to request and retrieve software keys for Jetbrains software from the IPFS network.

We were glad to have the opportunity to set them straight.

Section 1201 is a terrible law, but it doesn’t impose liability on a general-purpose conduit for information. First, a conduit does not fall into any of the three categories of trafficking under Section 1201: its primary purpose is not circumvention, it has extensive other uses, and it is not marketed for circumvention. Second, Congress has expressly recognized the need to protect conduits from legal risk given their crucial role in supporting the basic functioning of the internet. In Section 512(a) of the DMCA, Congress singled out conduits to receive the highest level of safe harbor protection, recognizing that the ability to dispose of copyright claims at an early stage of litigation was crucial to the operation of these services. It would be absurd to suggest that Congress granted conduits special immunity for copyright claims based on third party activity but then, in the same statute, made them liable for pseudo-copyright Section 1201 claims."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/defending-access-decentralized-web

#USA #Copyright #DMCA #Section1201 #Decentralization #IPFS: "Our client, computer scientist Mike Damm, offers a free IPFS gateway. He doesn’t control how people user it or what files they access. But a company called Jetbrains insists that that Mr. Damm could be liable under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because JetBrains’ lawyers are allegedly able to use his gateway to request and retrieve software keys for Jetbrains software from the IPFS network.

We were glad to have the opportunity to set them straight.

Section 1201 is a terrible law, but it doesn’t impose liability on a general-purpose conduit for information. First, a conduit does not fall into any of the three categories of trafficking under Section 1201: its primary purpose is not circumvention, it has extensive other uses, and it is not marketed for circumvention. Second, Congress has expressly recognized the need to protect conduits from legal risk given their crucial role in supporting the basic functioning of the internet. In Section 512(a) of the DMCA, Congress singled out conduits to receive the highest level of safe harbor protection, recognizing that the ability to dispose of copyright claims at an early stage of litigation was crucial to the operation of these services. It would be absurd to suggest that Congress granted conduits special immunity for copyright claims based on third party activity but then, in the same statute, made them liable for pseudo-copyright Section 1201 claims."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/defending-access-decentralized-web

#USA #Copyright #DMCA #Section1201 #Decentralization #IPFS: "Our client, computer scientist Mike Damm, offers a free IPFS gateway. He doesn’t control how people user it or what files they access. But a company called Jetbrains insists that that Mr. Damm could be liable under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because JetBrains’ lawyers are allegedly able to use his gateway to request and retrieve software keys for Jetbrains software from the IPFS network.

We were glad to have the opportunity to set them straight.

Section 1201 is a terrible law, but it doesn’t impose liability on a general-purpose conduit for information. First, a conduit does not fall into any of the three categories of trafficking under Section 1201: its primary purpose is not circumvention, it has extensive other uses, and it is not marketed for circumvention. Second, Congress has expressly recognized the need to protect conduits from legal risk given their crucial role in supporting the basic functioning of the internet. In Section 512(a) of the DMCA, Congress singled out conduits to receive the highest level of safe harbor protection, recognizing that the ability to dispose of copyright claims at an early stage of litigation was crucial to the operation of these services. It would be absurd to suggest that Congress granted conduits special immunity for copyright claims based on third party activity but then, in the same statute, made them liable for pseudo-copyright Section 1201 claims."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/defending-access-decentralized-web

#USA #Copyright #DMCA #Section1201 #Decentralization #IPFS: "Our client, computer scientist Mike Damm, offers a free IPFS gateway. He doesn’t control how people user it or what files they access. But a company called Jetbrains insists that that Mr. Damm could be liable under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because JetBrains’ lawyers are allegedly able to use his gateway to request and retrieve software keys for Jetbrains software from the IPFS network.

We were glad to have the opportunity to set them straight.

Section 1201 is a terrible law, but it doesn’t impose liability on a general-purpose conduit for information. First, a conduit does not fall into any of the three categories of trafficking under Section 1201: its primary purpose is not circumvention, it has extensive other uses, and it is not marketed for circumvention. Second, Congress has expressly recognized the need to protect conduits from legal risk given their crucial role in supporting the basic functioning of the internet. In Section 512(a) of the DMCA, Congress singled out conduits to receive the highest level of safe harbor protection, recognizing that the ability to dispose of copyright claims at an early stage of litigation was crucial to the operation of these services. It would be absurd to suggest that Congress granted conduits special immunity for copyright claims based on third party activity but then, in the same statute, made them liable for pseudo-copyright Section 1201 claims."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/defending-access-decentralized-web

Pirate IPTV Astrologer Received Signals But Failed to Predict Copyright Lawsuit

https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-iptv-astrologer-received-signals-but-failed-to-predict-copyright-lawsuit-240219/

#IPTVandStreaming #DishNetwork #section1201 #astrovastu #Lawsuits #sling #iptv

Pirate IPTV Astrologer Received Signals But Failed to Predict Copyright Lawsuit

https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-iptv-astrologer-received-signals-but-failed-to-predict-copyright-lawsuit-240219/

#IPTVandStreaming #DishNetwork #section1201 #astrovastu #Lawsuits #sling #iptv

Pirate IPTV Astrologer Received Signals But Failed to Predict Copyright Lawsuit

https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-iptv-astrologer-received-signals-but-failed-to-predict-copyright-lawsuit-240219/

#IPTVandStreaming #DishNetwork #section1201 #astrovastu #Lawsuits #sling #iptv

Pirate IPTV Astrologer Received Signals But Failed to Predict Copyright Lawsuit

https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-iptv-astrologer-received-signals-but-failed-to-predict-copyright-lawsuit-240219/

#IPTVandStreaming #DishNetwork #section1201 #astrovastu #Lawsuits #sling #iptv

Pirate IPTV Astrologer Received Signals But Failed to Predict Copyright Lawsuit

https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-iptv-astrologer-received-signals-but-failed-to-predict-copyright-lawsuit-240219/

#IPTVandStreaming #DishNetwork #section1201 #astrovastu #Lawsuits #sling #iptv