Reading 09

Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, is a law aiming at protecting intellectual properties in digital forms by regulating their usages. As stated in the article EFF – Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA consists of two main sections: the “anti-circumvention” section prevents users from using or developing tools that can circumvent the digital locks such as “access controls and technical protection measures”. The “safe harbor” section protects service providers from “monetary damages for the infringing activities of their users and other third parties on the net”. When found in violation against this act, a user will be asked to takedown the material to avoid lawsuits, which can lead to sever civil and criminal penalties.

Specifically, DMCA prohibits the use and manufacturing of devices that circumvent DRM schemes. I think it is ethical for companies to use these DRM schemes because they have the right to protect their intellectual properties with their own means. There is no difference between using DRM schemes and installing clothing store security doors in malls. Therefore, it is unethical for end users to circumvent these DRM schemes. Using the same analogy, circumventing these schemes would be the same as attempting to shoplift. The reason why people tend to be more ok with copyright infringement than shoplifting is their false idea about the Internet and sharing software products. It is true that Internet was built to facilitate sharing on a global scale. But sharing does not equal to getting and using things for free. People often confused the idea of readily available with the idea of easily produced or manufactured. There are free resources and open-source software on the Internet, which are designed to be freely used by everyone. It is important to recognize the fundamental differences between these products and the ones that are copyrighted.

However, many recent stories have indicated that DMCA is not quite effective at educating people about the value of copyrighted digital products. Instead, it is overreaching into other aspects of Internet usage, generating resentment and even more circumventing and pirating. The “notice and takedown” approach imposes restrictions on users’ freedom of expression. The example of this restriction is shown in the article The Tyranny of Copyright, which tells the story of students at Swarthmore College being asked to take down their posts that were found to be in violation of DMCA.

On the other hand, although there is no explicit mentioning of reverse engineering in DMCA, many court rulings have been in favor of using DMCA to restrict it, regardless of the purpose. The act made the assumption of any attempt at reverse engineering is aimed at finding loopholes and take advantage of them. It completely ignores the many valid reasons for performing reverse engineering. The article Software, reverse engineering and the law lists three of these legitimate reasons: first, reverse engineering is needed if the programmers of the product are no longer accessible, and reverse engineering can give us answers about the technology. Second, programmers planning on developing software that can interoperate with the one being studied may wish to use reverse engineering. Third, reverse engineering is a powerful method to study the software and probe for bugs and security flaws. All these uses are beneficial to the software company and the programming community. Therefore, whether reverse engineering should be permitted depends on why it is performed. For example unlocking a contract phone should not be permitted but personalizing software in vehicles or probing software for security bugs to enhance security should. It is important that DMCA remains flexible enough so that it does not destroy the collaborative environment vital to advances in the technology industry.