DMCA horror show
Scarier than ghosts and ghouls, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a nightmare for Red Hat
WELL, IT’S THAT time of year again when horrifying things terrorize people in their dreams. Ghoulish tales fill the air. And grown people peek over their shoulders in fear.
No, I’m not talking about Halloween. It’s time again to consider the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
For those who don’t recall the bill, the DMCA was supposed to be the magic legal bullet that would protect copyright holders from efforts to crack security measures protecting intellectual property. Although that may sound reasonable and business-friendly, it has proved to be otherwise — especially when it comes to open-source software.
It has come to the forefront once again for two reasons. First, Red Hat recently issued a security patch for the Linux kernel. Unfortunately, due to the DMCA’s provisions, company officials believe they cannot explain to U.S. citizens what the patch does. A European Web site ( www.thefreeworld.net/non-US ) will divulge the information to non-U.S. citizens but will deny access to Americans. Explaining the problem might violate the DMCA and leave Red Hat exposed to possible prosecution.
You see, if Red Hat describes the security flaw, it will indirectly reveal how unscrupulous individuals can exploit the security deficiency in a number of Linux distributions. And that, Red Hat officials say, appears to be a violation of the DMCA. After all, if Dmitry Sklyarov can be hauled off to jail for publicly demonstrating that a commercial security scheme did not work as advertised, anything is possible.
Now I fully understand that businesses need to be properly compensated for creating innovative solutions, but this situation is too ludicrous for words. When a law such as the DMCA cripples free speech to the point where a company such as Red Hat is too scared to release details of a patch it is distributing, something is dreadfully wrong. This law crosses the line from protecting business to enforcing ignorance.
As implemented, the DMCA makes as much sense as outlawing cars to protect the rights of the buggy-whip industry. It’s one thing to encourage business; it’s another to do so by denying that the rest of the world is moving on. In this case, the DMCA flies into the face of open-source development because Red Hat does not “own” the Linux kernel and therefore cannot discuss things that compromise its security. The law might work for some closed-source software companies, but it is clearly out of sync with the open-source movement gaining momentum worldwide.
The second issue that brings the DMCA into the light of scrutiny is the fact that the U.S. Copyright Office is asking for public comment regarding the law. The feedback period begins Nov. 19 and lasts until Dec. 18. If you have strong feelings about the DMCA, you’ll have an opportunity to express them. Links to the appropriate government Web site are in the Open Source forum at www.infoworld.com/os.
