5 ms·

Besides the fact that DMCA was probably created specifically for the RIAA, is it possible for the EFF to push for the RIAA to be stripped of their right to use

Besides the fact that DMCA was probably created specifically for the RIAA, is it possible for the EFF to push for the RIAA to be stripped of their right to use DMCA due to their abuse of it?

rrobukef 6y ago
OSS developers as a whole can fight back by lobbying projects to add license exceptions against certain corporations. Viewing riaa.com, let's start with jQuery, WordPress and bootstrap.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  That's impossible due to the licensing terms of the GPL and other open source licenses. IIRC there was a row on Debian many years ago that dealt with some license derivation that prohibited use in weapons research and construction...
- mnw21cam 6y ago
  It's sometimes very hard to change the license of an open source project. Technically you would need to contact all of the contributors to the project (and there may be a lot of them) and acquire their permission. In any case, RIAA already has a license to use the existing software. That license can't be unilaterally withdrawn, unless RIAA violates terms of the license that invalidates it. New versions of the software can be released with the new license, but RIAA can continue to use the older version with the original license. And, as other people have pointed out, this would create a software license that is "non-free", and therefore incompatible with other open-source licenses, causing all sorts of headaches with software distributions, and any other software that has a dependency on the software.
  - jraph 6y ago
    And if everybody add their own little restrictions on people / organizations they find evil, the whole thing could rapidly become unmanageable even if licenses are somewhat compatible when trying to combine codes from different projects. This is not a good path to take, even if it sounds appealing. Revenge is also often not the right response to a bad action, it can escalate where the opposite effect may be desirable. Let's try other stuff and continue to allow RIAA to use our tools, they even may evolve for the better in the future and that would be great, no?
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      The RIAA is based on revenge against media sharing. There had to be some rules, but I don't think I would want to compromise with the organization.
      - jmpman 6y ago
        Interesting view. I thought the RIAA was based on ensuring rights for copyright holders.
        horsawlarway 6y ago
        If by rights, you explicitly mean "The right to be paid" then I think you're probably correct. Although I'd note they're not really interested in having the musician get paid. Mainly just members of the RIAA. Now - I have some sympathy for that view - I'd also like to get paid, and while I think the RIAA has little real value in the world, some of it's members certainly are working on the marketing and promotion front. That said, I use many of these downloading services to save conference talks from youtube. So they're attacking a service I use legally for a useful purpose. At some point, ethically, I start to lose ANY sympathy for them as an organization. Basically - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNS7IqmZBbA&has_verified=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNS7IqmZBbA&has_verified=1
    - rrobukef 6y ago
      Licensing is already a big mess. And it is not about revenge. It is about enforcing the spirit of those open source licenses. WordPress uses GPL to force users to contribute to open source. Do you think the RIAA contributes? Instead they actively attack it. Do you think the RIAA can evolve for the better? It has an explicit mandate to restrict copyrights. Its existence opposes the software they use. True, sadly it is unfeasible. It is a nice fantasy.
      - athms 6y ago
        >WordPress uses GPL to force users to contribute to open source. No it doesn't. Users can modify the source and refuse to share it. Sharing only applies if one distributes the code.
- mlang23 6y ago
  This would make these projects non-DFSG-compliant, and Debian (and its derivatives) could no longer distribute a package. I totally get the idea of boycott. But the definition of freeness says that if you do that, you are no longer free.
- inops 6y ago
  I don't know the specifics, but I'm fairly sure that would make the software not open source/free software as recognised by the OSI/FSF.
  - rrobukef 6y ago
    Surely there exists better terms than an explicit blacklist. I see this as a social weakness in GPL and other open source. GPL wanted to restrict people from profiting without contributing back. Now they profit and attack other projects. What about this: GPL is supported by the FSF. Add a term which allows license use as long as no other projects explicitly supported by the FSF are attacked. (For some definition of attacked, supported,...) Everything remains open, yet the FSF/OSI gets ways to fight back against egregorious takedowns. Even just terms revoking the youtube-dl license the RIAA has (because you can bet one of them has used it), would be a step forward.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Viewing riaa.com, let's start with jQuery, WordPress and bootstrap. More interesting perhaps would be a restriction on using the software on a device that implements DRM. Then wait for the software to end up on RIAA member servers or hardware products and enforce the license.
  - swiley 6y ago
    That's what the GPLv3 does more or less.
- finnthehuman 6y ago
  You're not going to get a lot of traction asking open source projects to stop being Open Source. The OSI open source definition (and the Debian Free Software Guidelines that it was adapted from) specifically prohibit discrimination against Persons, Groups or Fields of Endeavor.

Besides the fact that DMCA was probably created specifically for the RIAA, is it possible for the EFF to push for the RIAA to be stripped of their right to use DMCA due to their abuse of it?

rrobukef 6y ago

OSS developers as a whole can fight back by lobbying projects to add license exceptions against certain corporations. Viewing riaa.com, let's start with jQuery, WordPress and bootstrap.

mschuster91 6y ago
That's impossible due to the licensing terms of the GPL and other open source licenses. IIRC there was a row on Debian many years ago that dealt with some license derivation that prohibited use in weapons research and construction...
mnw21cam 6y ago
It's sometimes very hard to change the license of an open source project. Technically you would need to contact all of the contributors to the project (and there may be a lot of them) and acquire their permission. In any case, RIAA already has a license to use the existing software. That license can't be unilaterally withdrawn, unless RIAA violates terms of the license that invalidates it. New versions of the software can be released with the new license, but RIAA can continue to use the older version with the original license. And, as other people have pointed out, this would create a software license that is "non-free", and therefore incompatible with other open-source licenses, causing all sorts of headaches with software distributions, and any other software that has a dependency on the software.
- jraph 6y ago
  And if everybody add their own little restrictions on people / organizations they find evil, the whole thing could rapidly become unmanageable even if licenses are somewhat compatible when trying to combine codes from different projects. This is not a good path to take, even if it sounds appealing. Revenge is also often not the right response to a bad action, it can escalate where the opposite effect may be desirable. Let's try other stuff and continue to allow RIAA to use our tools, they even may evolve for the better in the future and that would be great, no?
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    The RIAA is based on revenge against media sharing. There had to be some rules, but I don't think I would want to compromise with the organization.
    - jmpman 6y ago
      Interesting view. I thought the RIAA was based on ensuring rights for copyright holders.
      - horsawlarway 6y ago
        If by rights, you explicitly mean "The right to be paid" then I think you're probably correct. Although I'd note they're not really interested in having the musician get paid. Mainly just members of the RIAA. Now - I have some sympathy for that view - I'd also like to get paid, and while I think the RIAA has little real value in the world, some of it's members certainly are working on the marketing and promotion front. That said, I use many of these downloading services to save conference talks from youtube. So they're attacking a service I use legally for a useful purpose. At some point, ethically, I start to lose ANY sympathy for them as an organization. Basically - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNS7IqmZBbA&has_verified=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNS7IqmZBbA&has_verified=1
  - rrobukef 6y ago
    Licensing is already a big mess. And it is not about revenge. It is about enforcing the spirit of those open source licenses. WordPress uses GPL to force users to contribute to open source. Do you think the RIAA contributes? Instead they actively attack it. Do you think the RIAA can evolve for the better? It has an explicit mandate to restrict copyrights. Its existence opposes the software they use. True, sadly it is unfeasible. It is a nice fantasy.
    - athms 6y ago
      >WordPress uses GPL to force users to contribute to open source. No it doesn't. Users can modify the source and refuse to share it. Sharing only applies if one distributes the code.
mlang23 6y ago
This would make these projects non-DFSG-compliant, and Debian (and its derivatives) could no longer distribute a package. I totally get the idea of boycott. But the definition of freeness says that if you do that, you are no longer free.
inops 6y ago
I don't know the specifics, but I'm fairly sure that would make the software not open source/free software as recognised by the OSI/FSF.
- rrobukef 6y ago
  Surely there exists better terms than an explicit blacklist. I see this as a social weakness in GPL and other open source. GPL wanted to restrict people from profiting without contributing back. Now they profit and attack other projects. What about this: GPL is supported by the FSF. Add a term which allows license use as long as no other projects explicitly supported by the FSF are attacked. (For some definition of attacked, supported,...) Everything remains open, yet the FSF/OSI gets ways to fight back against egregorious takedowns. Even just terms revoking the youtube-dl license the RIAA has (because you can bet one of them has used it), would be a step forward.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Viewing riaa.com, let's start with jQuery, WordPress and bootstrap. More interesting perhaps would be a restriction on using the software on a device that implements DRM. Then wait for the software to end up on RIAA member servers or hardware products and enforce the license.
- swiley 6y ago
  That's what the GPLv3 does more or less.
finnthehuman 6y ago
You're not going to get a lot of traction asking open source projects to stop being Open Source. The OSI open source definition (and the Debian Free Software Guidelines that it was adapted from) specifically prohibit discrimination against Persons, Groups or Fields of Endeavor.