Recently, U.S. has approved a series of laws aimed at outlawing the publication of studies and analyses showing vulnerabilities in hardware or software systems. The laws covered under the common name DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) are intended to defend the content industries (audio, text and video) against piracy, but its implications are very extensive.
The DMCA makes it illegal distribution of "circumvention technology (technology to circumvent protections). Understood, broadly speaking as something that is already being implemented in the U.S., a scientific document describing vulnerability in a technology within this category and, hence, it would be illegal in the US.
Although to publish information about vulnerabilities is illegal information will continue to circulate freely through the "underground" where anonymity is law. Instead, system administrators and those responsible for security, and other legally permitted persons, will not have access to that information.
The technical and scientific progress of the free flow of information and independent studies. This is especially true in the field of cryptology. If the design problems or
implementation of a cryptographic system can not be made public in a legal manner, users will be weak and systems insecure.
Already there are demonstrable cases in which a cryptographic technology,
once exposed to independent experts, has proven unsafe, GSM encryption, copy protection on DVDs, WEP encryption 802.11 wireless networks .If these technologies had been made public, the discovery of their vulnerabilities would have been incurred
before reaching the market.
Additionally, without advertising any vulnerability, businesses would have no incentive to continue to innovate and to provide new systems, even after countless failed attempts. A Russian citizen, named Dmitry Sklyarov, is awaiting trial
U.S. as the co-author of a program used to decipher PDF files. The program developed and distributed by a Russian firm sold from that country. Dimitri is accused of violating the DMCA, even if he is a foreign citizen and the acts of which he is accused are made outside the U.S. Dimitri was arrested by the FBI after
a complaint from Adobe, after a security conference developed in the United States,
Sklyarov's work is perfectly legal in Russia and most Western countries.
Professor Edward Felten of Princeton University decided not to publish the security flaws that had been discovered in the SDMI challenge (Secure Digital Music Initiative), which proved that it was possible eliminate "watermarks" embedded in a song, destroying the copy system tested by the SDMI. Although the objective of the challenge was to demonstrate whether the proposed systems were safe,
but still, to publish their results would be illegal. In that sense, the recording industry was still trying to pass a music protection scheme proved unsuccessful, although
tests would not be public, and the author of them had to face judicial complaints.
Recently Niels Ferguson, Dutch-known cryptographer of international prestige claimed to have discovered a vulnerability in HDCP protection scheme from Intel. HDCP is a cipher DVI for the bus, which connects televisions, cameras, players
DVD and the like. According to Ferguson, one can obtain the master key
system in less than two weeks. Once this key is can be copied without restriction or create content, create new devices, and so on. This is a law that seems to work against the companies it was intended to protect.
What Are Copyright Laws
Software copyright laws are among the most difficult to enforce among the masses. Many companies and corporations are well known for overlooking these laws, which were designed to protect the creation of software from not earning their worth. Perhaps one of the biggest hitches why many software businesses go out of business is they have difficulty enforcing software copyright laws and getting money that is owed to them from end users.
Software developers, particularly in the corporate world, design software that makes other companies run more efficiently. The software allows these companies to save millions of dollars each year. Software copyright laws protect the interests of the software developers who create these massive programs. These expensive programs are designed specifically for that one company. The copyright and license agreement often consists of a certain number of users with the company purchasing more licenses or copies of the software during expansions or paying some sort of royalties for the use of the software.
The purchasing companies agree to this and then often fail to honor that agreement. The agreement is what allows this company to use that software. When companies aren't living up to their end of this agreement, they are not only guilty of breaching that agreement, but also of breaking software copyright laws. The trouble always lies in proving they are not honoring the contract and the extent and duration of the breach.
Some ways companies will argue, in defense of not paying the royalties, additional fees, purchasing additional software, etc. is they had upgraded computers and reused the old software (they did actually purchase the rights to use the original software and by doing so feel that they have broken no software copyright laws). The problem lies in the fact that adding ten new computers and placing the software on those should mean you remove it from or get rid of 10 old computers. This is rarely how it works. The truth is they've stolen ten copies of software which can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Multiply this by 10, 20, or 100 companies doing the same thing and the offending companies are costing software developers millions of dollars in profits. This is when software copyright laws are not as far reaching in their scope as they really need to be.
Software copyright laws exist to protect the software companies from this type of abuse and misuse; however, the hands of the companies are almost unilaterally tied when it comes to proving that software copyright laws have been broken in court.
There are always exceptions to every rule. In this case big business software developers that abuse the software copyright laws make the exceptions rather than consumers who do not pay for the products they are consuming. The big boys are able to do this by offering licenses for their software and claiming that these laws do not apply to their situation because they are not actually selling the software, but only “renting” out permission for people or companies to use that software. The true irony is that these practices began as a response to the corporate irresponsibility mentioned above. It's amazing the very software copyright laws that were created to protect these companies can't protect their consumers from the greed of the developing companies.
Both Beth Thompson & Brian Scott are contributors for EditorialToday. The above articles have been edited for relevancy and timeliness. All write-ups, reviews, tips and guides published by EditorialToday.com and its partners or affiliates are for informational purposes only. They should not be used for any legal or any other type of advice. We do not endorse any author, contributor, writer or article posted by our team.
All American Auto Glass Auto glass technicians may work in shops or travel to customers locations. They use computers to keep records, send bills, and estimate repair costs