European High Court Will Examine DRM Anti-Circumvention Rules

from the free-speech-anyone? dept

A European directive from a few years ago included a DRM anti-circumvention clause that even made it illegal to host an "organized discussion" of techniques for circumventing DRM. That seemed excessively broad (and unfairly limiting) to Mikko Rauhala, who set up a discussion site where people could discuss CSS, the notoriously lame copy protection used on DVDs that has been broken for ages. He did it mainly to get the issue into court -- which it did. Two years ago, a Finnish court had an odd ruling on the case, in which it claimed circumvention was okay if the DRM was ineffective. That's because the directive specifically claims that it applies to "effective DRM." Of course, taken to its logical conclusion, one might think that means if you can break DRM, then you haven't violated the anti-circumvention language, because you've proven that the DRM is ineffective. It's a bit of a logical pretzel. So, while I agree that it's silly to make discussion of circumvention illegal, the legal reasoning was a bit twisted.

So, it came as little surprise a year later, when an appeals court overturned the lower ruling. However, from a free speech perspective, this was still quite troubling. Banning any organized discussion about a technology seems tremendously questionable. The good news (as found via Michael Scott) is that the case is now going to the European Court of Human Rights. One hopes they'll recognize this as a violation of basic civil rights. It's troubling enough that simply circumventing copy protection on legally purchased goods is considered breaking the law. It's much worse to say that even talking about it is against the law.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  • icon
    Osno (profile), Aug 4th, 2009 @ 4:31am

    Reminds me of the time when discussing cryptography was banned in the US. Security by obscurity is never a good idea, some hacker who really doesn't care for your rules will figure crack your stuff, and you'll be worse because you didn't get a bunch of smart people to discuss the best possible security. Not that this applies to DRM directly. DRM will always be lame.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2009 @ 5:53am

    Yes, drive the discussion underground so you aren't aware of the weaknesses of your protection schema. Brilliant.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    CStrube (profile), Aug 4th, 2009 @ 6:09am

    These types of rules regarding discussions sounds like a directive straight from MiniTrue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2009 @ 7:53am

    "(as found via Michael Scott,"

    Either need to remove a comma and add a parentheses
    (as found via Michael Scott)
    Add a comma and remove a parentheses
    ,as found via Michael Scott,

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Hugo Cox, Aug 5th, 2009 @ 4:15am

    The directive doesn't outlaw organized discussion - it was the Finnish implementation of the directive that did.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Hide this ad »
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Hide this ad »
Recent Stories
Advertisement - Amazon Prime Music
Hide this ad »


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.