ed felton v. riaa fredrik lundberg matt gong sung noh

Ed Felton v. RIAAEd Felton v. RIAA

Fredrik LundbergFredrik Lundberg

Matt GongMatt Gong

Sung NohSung Noh

IntroductionIntroduction

Ed Felton is an Ed Felton is an Associate Associate Professor of Professor of Computer Science Computer Science at Princeton at Princeton UniversityUniversity

The ContestThe Contest

Ed Felten and his team of researchers accepted a public challenge by the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) to break new watermark technologies.

Verance developed these watermark technologies used for copyrighting music.

Ed Felton successfully cracked the code but instead of collecting the prize money from the contest, he decided to publish the bug in a paper at a Pittsburgh conference.

The ThreatsThe Threats

Ed Felton was threatened by SDMI and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to keep silent or face litigation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The threats stated that Ed Felton violated the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.

Ed Felton decided not to publish the paper at the Pittsburgh conference.

The PublicationThe Publication

Later the RIAA and SDMI claim they had no Later the RIAA and SDMI claim they had no intention of suing Ed Feltonintention of suing Ed Felton

Still, Ed Felton filed a lawsuit asking a federal Still, Ed Felton filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to rule that the publication of the paper, court to rule that the publication of the paper, and future papers, would be legaland future papers, would be legal

The case was dismissed by the federal court The case was dismissed by the federal court because it was perceived as conjectural or because it was perceived as conjectural or hypothetical, since the RIAA stated they had “no hypothetical, since the RIAA stated they had “no objection whatsoever”.objection whatsoever”.

Ed Felton finally published the paper at the Ed Felton finally published the paper at the Usenix Security Conference.Usenix Security Conference.

TimelineTimeline September, 2000: SDMI Challenge introduced

November 8, 2000: Ed Felton successfully breaks code and intends to publish paper

April 9, 2001: RIAA/SDMI Legally threats Ed Felton

April 26, 2001: Ed Felton publicly announces not to publish paper.

May 3, 2001: RIAA/SDMI claim they never intended to sue

June 6, 2001: Ed Felton files lawsuit against RIAA/SDMI

July 12, 2001: The case is dismissed by the court

August 15, 2001: Paper is published

StakeholdersStakeholders

RIAA – Record Industry Association of RIAA – Record Industry Association of AmericaAmerica

Academics – professors, students, etc.Academics – professors, students, etc. MusiciansMusicians Verance and other watermark companiesVerance and other watermark companies Music ListenersMusic Listeners

– Legitimate BuyersLegitimate Buyers– Those who illegally copyThose who illegally copy

Getting More AbstractGetting More Abstract

Ed Felton v. RIAA is a specific case Ed Felton v. RIAA is a specific case of Freedom of Speech v. copyright of Freedom of Speech v. copyright laws and a company’s rights laws and a company’s rights

It can be reduced to the conflict It can be reduced to the conflict between a discloser (I.e. Ed Felton) between a discloser (I.e. Ed Felton) and a company (I.e. RIAA/SDMI)and a company (I.e. RIAA/SDMI)

Company’s ArgumentsCompany’s Arguments

Protecting the CustomersProtecting the Customers– The publication of the bug will most likely The publication of the bug will most likely

cause an increase in illegal distribution of cause an increase in illegal distribution of musicmusic

– Musicians will be upset that their music is Musicians will be upset that their music is not being purchasednot being purchased

– Music listeners will not buy music anymore, Music listeners will not buy music anymore, and the ones that do will be upset that and the ones that do will be upset that others are getting music for free.others are getting music for free.

– Verance’s watermark technology devaluedVerance’s watermark technology devalued


Protection of Intellectual PropertyProtection of Intellectual Property– Copyrights protect musician’s rightsCopyrights protect musician’s rights

Illegal copying devalues musicIllegal copying devalues music– Copyrights preserve the progress of science Copyrights preserve the progress of science

and art (I.e. Music)and art (I.e. Music) Preserving the innovative spirit that Preserving the innovative spirit that

drives creation of musicdrives creation of music


Protection of ReputationProtection of Reputation– Reputation may be damaged by flaws being Reputation may be damaged by flaws being

known to the publicknown to the public Criticism may aid in providing fixes for Criticism may aid in providing fixes for

bugs, but may allow customers to lose bugs, but may allow customers to lose trust in the companytrust in the company

– Company desires security by obscurityCompany desires security by obscurity Phase II products will replace Phase I Phase II products will replace Phase I

productsproducts


Watermark technology already in use Watermark technology already in use – (I.e. DVD-Audio, SDMI Phase I products)(I.e. DVD-Audio, SDMI Phase I products)

Ed Felton was violating the “spirit and Ed Felton was violating the “spirit and terms” of the “Click-Through Agreement”terms” of the “Click-Through Agreement”

Ed Felton misinterpreted the conflict - Ed Felton misinterpreted the conflict - – the conflict is between two competing the conflict is between two competing

group of scientists (I.e. Verance and Ed group of scientists (I.e. Verance and Ed Felton)Felton)

Discloser’s ArgumentsDiscloser’s Arguments

Protecting the UsersProtecting the Users– Inform the users about problemsInform the users about problems

The users has the right to know about The users has the right to know about problems and decide if it is ok to use the problems and decide if it is ok to use the program or not.program or not.

It is not more than fair to know about a It is not more than fair to know about a programs shortcomings before buying it.programs shortcomings before buying it.


protecting the usersprotecting the users– Put pressure on manufacturerPut pressure on manufacturer

Letting the public know about the problem Letting the public know about the problem gives the manufacturer a greater gives the manufacturer a greater incentive to solve the problem.incentive to solve the problem.


Protection of intellectual properties Protection of intellectual properties valuevalue– The product we buy is not only a programThe product we buy is not only a program

When we buys a program we buy more than just a When we buys a program we buy more than just a cd, we expect updates and service such as cd, we expect updates and service such as updates.updates.

We also pay more for a reliable product from a We also pay more for a reliable product from a company that we trust. Announcing known company that we trust. Announcing known problem can increase our trust and confidence in problem can increase our trust and confidence in the company.the company.

Good service can be a strong marketing argument.Good service can be a strong marketing argument.


Protection of reputationProtection of reputation– Will hiding problem improve or Will hiding problem improve or

decrease a company's reputation?decrease a company's reputation?Instead of lower the company’s reputation Instead of lower the company’s reputation

a policy characterized by openness might a policy characterized by openness might be considered an advantage and increase be considered an advantage and increase the company’s reputation.the company’s reputation.


Different program ownersDifferent program owners– Is there a different conflict if the Is there a different conflict if the

program is open source compared to program is open source compared to owned by a company?owned by a company?

LawsLaws

Copyright Act & DMCACopyright Act & DMCA– Intended to restore the balance Intended to restore the balance

between users and copyright holdersbetween users and copyright holdersNew technology changed the balance New technology changed the balance

between required effort quality of the between required effort quality of the copies.copies.

The new laws were supposed to restore the The new laws were supposed to restore the balance but some argue they did more balance but some argue they did more than just restore the old balancethan just restore the old balance

LawsLaws

Result from DMCAResult from DMCA– Less researchLess research

Some researchers has not published their Some researchers has not published their findingsfindings

Some conferences has been held in other Some conferences has been held in other countriescountries

– Less fair useLess fair use Some techniques used to protect the Some techniques used to protect the

copyright has stopped the user from some copyright has stopped the user from some usages traditionally considered to be fair use. usages traditionally considered to be fair use.

LawsLaws

Ed Felten vs RIAA caseEd Felten vs RIAA case– Ed feltens team participated in open Ed feltens team participated in open

challengechallenge– The participants were encouraged to The participants were encouraged to

‘crack’ the watermark schemes‘crack’ the watermark schemes– They did not promise to keep their They did not promise to keep their

findings secretfindings secret– RIAA attempts to stop the paper from RIAA attempts to stop the paper from

publicationpublication

LawsLaws

Ed Felten vs RIAA caseEd Felten vs RIAA case– Felten & team asks court to declare it Felten & team asks court to declare it

legal for them to publish the paper legal for them to publish the paper without fearing legal consequenceswithout fearing legal consequences

– Never settled in court, RIAA declare Never settled in court, RIAA declare that they will not take legal actionsthat they will not take legal actions

– In their declaration RIAA says that In their declaration RIAA says that they consider reviews to be necessary they consider reviews to be necessary

Ethical IssuesEthical Issues

Is publishing a bug in a company’s code Is publishing a bug in a company’s code acceptable if it is for research and academics?acceptable if it is for research and academics?

What is the right thing to do if we break code?What is the right thing to do if we break code?– Release to the publicRelease to the public– Contact the company – What if they do not fix it?Contact the company – What if they do not fix it?– Fix it yourself – What if you are not allowed to?Fix it yourself – What if you are not allowed to?

Can publishing a bug be illegal yet ethical?Can publishing a bug be illegal yet ethical?– Example: A bug is dangerous to the public, it would Example: A bug is dangerous to the public, it would

be ethical to publish itbe ethical to publish it


Is the discloser (I.e. Ed Felton) liable for Is the discloser (I.e. Ed Felton) liable for the damages caused by the publication?the damages caused by the publication?

Does the fact that the RIAA was holding Does the fact that the RIAA was holding a contest to break their code a factor?a contest to break their code a factor?


Are there potential damages to the public if it Are there potential damages to the public if it were illegal to publish bugs?were illegal to publish bugs?– Bugs never get fixedBugs never get fixed– Technology not properly verifiedTechnology not properly verified

The Future: How will the outcome of this The Future: How will the outcome of this conflict affect everyone?conflict affect everyone?– Transparent Society? Higher level of Transparent Society? Higher level of

confidence?confidence?

ConclusionConclusion

There is no easy answerThere is no easy answer – someone will – someone will be damaged no matter what we dobe damaged no matter what we do

Fair use v.s. strong copyright lawFair use v.s. strong copyright law– Copyright owners have a stronger Copyright owners have a stronger

position by lawposition by law We must be able to preserve copyrights We must be able to preserve copyrights

but still give room for research and but still give room for research and academics.academics.

ReferencesReferences ACM Submits Declaration in Felten v. RIAAACM Submits Declaration in Felten v. RIAA

– http://www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/felten_declaratihttp://www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/felten_declaration.htmlon.html

Electric Frontier FoundationElectric Frontier Foundation– http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Felten_v_RIAA/http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Felten_v_RIAA/

SlashdotSlashdot– http://slashdot.org/features/01/11/30/1739226.http://slashdot.org/features/01/11/30/1739226.shtmlshtml

Public Right To Know Conference 2001Public Right To Know Conference 2001– http://acij.uts.edu.au/pr2k/rimmer.htmlhttp://acij.uts.edu.au/pr2k/rimmer.html

Science OnlineScience Online– http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ful/293/5537/http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ful/293/5537/

20282028

ed felton v. riaa fredrik lundberg matt gong sung noh

Documents

paper n n

riaasdmi n n

court n n

n n verance

timeline n n

ed felton n n

music n

threats n n ed felton