Another fun DMCA case [LWN.net]

Another fun DMCA case

Posted Jul 12, 2005 19:27 UTC (Tue) by jhardin@impsec.org (guest, #15045)
In reply to: Another fun DMCA case by MathFox
Parent article: Another fun DMCA case

> There have been several convictions for "computer tresspassing" where
> companies spidered websites with disregard of the robots.txt file.

And that is the proper way to treat it. "robots.txt" is *not* a copyright-enforcement technology and no amount of contortion can make it one.

to post comments

Another fun DMCA case

Posted Jul 12, 2005 19:49 UTC (Tue) by job (guest, #670) [Link] (5 responses)

If robots.txt isn't a copyright enforcement tool, then what is? How do
you argue that DVD CSS or other kinds of DRM is one? (Which is basically
what the law was designed to protect.)

Another fun DMCA case

Posted Jul 12, 2005 20:04 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]

robots.txt is like "keep out" written in a brochure inside the house.
CSS is like a cheap lock on the door.

Another fun DMCA case

Posted Jul 12, 2005 20:30 UTC (Tue) by jhardin@impsec.org (guest, #15045) [Link]

> If robots.txt isn't a copyright enforcement tool, then what is? How do
> you argue that DVD CSS or other kinds of DRM is one?

They are *very* different.

DVD CSS and other types of DRM employ encryption and (supposedly) strong access controls on the keying material used to decrypt the protected content.

robots.txt is not intended to be used by interactve browsers, only webcrawlers, and only to indicate content that should not be indexed.

In the context of a website, the closest you could get to a "copyright enforcement" tool would be to password-protect access to the website. *then* you might be able to argue that attempting to crack the password is a DMCA violation.

Security through obscurity is inherently broken. Trying to enforce it through legislation does not fix it, it only makes you look like an idiot.

Another fun DMCA case

Posted Jul 13, 2005 11:37 UTC (Wed) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] (2 responses)

Use your little brain please..

The situatuions are only slightly asymmetrical.

You have to decrypt an encrypted DVD to gain access to the copyrighted material on the DVD. I.e. you do have to make an effort to gain access to the copyrighted material.

You don't have to read robots.txt to gain access to the copyrighted material on a website.

How can robots.txt qualify as a copyright enforcement tool if you have to do nothing to gain access to the copyrighted material? Please explain..

Another fun DMCA case

Posted Jul 19, 2005 9:22 UTC (Tue) by job (guest, #670) [Link] (1 responses)

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks in this forum, which is otherwise so spared from it. I had a point to make and I would only be grateful to explain the reasoning further:

I understand there is a difference of intent. You can much easier claim that you had no idea the web site content was forbidden (it usually isn't) than that the DVD video was (it usually is, codified by CSS). While this will make a big difference in court it does not affect the actual wrongdoing.

By the logic of your own reasoning, you may well argue that you bought a DVD to actually watch it or an e-book to read it. We already know that is a wrongdoing in the broad sense. In the line of the content providers, you are not allowed to "read" to book or "watch" the video -- you only have a license to access the information with a legitimate tool.

What these web content providers are doing is nothing different. They also only allow you to access the material with a legitimate tool of their choice, a "regular" web browser. Whether this is codified in law or code does not matter to them. (And it should not, in the general sense, much as a break-in is a break-in even if the door is unlocked.)

That is why this is similar to DVD CSS. It may be an unjust law (I don't live there) but it is the same reasoning covering both cases, DRM codified in law.

Another fun DMCA case

Posted Jul 24, 2005 12:43 UTC (Sun) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link]

You are confused on what an ad hominem argument is.

I did mix in some ridicule, yes. But I did make a solid argument in observing that the two situations are quite different. The ridicule follows as a conclusion to the observation that someone is able to argue that both situations are equivalent.

An ad hominem argument is when one attacks the person without arguing the position the person defends.