Finn turns to ECHR after arrest for discussing DRM A Finnish man has asked the European Court of Human Rights to defend his right to discuss encryption systems used by the entertainment industry. He says that Finland's implementation of the EU's Copyright Directive restricts his right to free speech. The Copyright Directive was transposed into Finnish law in 2006 and contained …
I simply can't understand courts worldwide that decide, after their judgement, that it cannot be retested by more senior judges.
"Nothing to regret, nothing to worry about"
I've been wrong in some of my calls - OK - engineering, but I've never worried about my decision being subject to more scrutiny. Corrected if necessary - not a problem for me.
Are they allergic to facial egg???
CSS is the classic example of why DRM is pointless - it will always be possible to circumvent it, one way or another. This is why CSS is obsolete.
As for not being allowed to discuss it, what next? You're not allowed to even think about it?
Does this mean that I'll be extradited to Finland to face prosecution if I publish information about it on the interwebs?
but in Finland - and I anticipate better of them than to do that.
For a Nation that has been fought over by the Swedes, Germans and Russians in the last 125 years they should have a higher appreciation of human rights and should have just let this go. But NO, we cannot get it wrong, the law is right!
So sad!
The problem is that more senior courts have to put faith in the lower courts, otherwise their existence could not be justified and the whole hierarchy would become flat - leaving just one Supreme Court and us back where we started: a court without any oversight.
I think (and may be corrected) that appeal is usually limited to one of two cases: either where the original court made a procedural error (it then goes to an appeal court who decide solely on the basis of that procedure) or where the issue at stake is a fairly hazy point of law that needs clarification (in which case the House of Lords / Supreme Court have their say).
It isn't clear from the story whether this Finnish case falls into one of these two scenarios. The ECHR therefore seems like a pretty good option (and, with any luck, a successful one).
Big Brother icon. Again. Because we IT people thought we had it sussed with the implicit freedom of the Internet but have now given way to Orwell's nightmare.
You start by adding an exception saying "holocaust denial is a crime", then it expands to generic "hate speech laws", then it expands to anything that can be described as 'harrasment' or 'bullying words', and now we're at the stage where we can't talk about the flaws in a security product designed to protect media?
Heck anything else they want to ban? Can I discuss Nokia book value per share in Finland?
http://www.sveiby.com/articles/InvisibleBalance.html
See suppose they list their DRM technology as an intangible asset in the book value (like software patent of DLLs etc).
If that technology is flawed, then that valuation is flawed. Wouldn't you be deceiving investors about the value of your intangible assets, by suppressing discussion of it's flaws? Are they not entitled to know the true value of those assets, including discussion of the flaws in things contributing to those intangible assets?
And people who license the DRM, wouldn't they also be deceived about it's security, by suppressing discussion of the flaws? It seems that one group would know about the flaws, and another group wouldn't because discussion between the two groups is suppressed.
Is somehow deception for commercial gain approved in Finland? I don't think it is, flawed products should be exposed as flawed, the burden is on the security product maker, to make it secure.
"CSS is the classic example of why DRM is pointless - it will always be possible to circumvent it, one way or another. This is why CSS is obsolete."
CSS is technically obsolete, apart from being present in every DVD and player. But one of the more insidious threats of stronger DRM is that the hardware can be made very difficult to subvert, which results in history becoming what the owners of claimed "intellectual property" choose to rewrite it to become. Libraries and museums will always want to be able to preserve genuine history as opposed to the revisionism that suits IP owners. But these laws intentionally suppress discussion enabling freeing of hardware and media between legitimate preservationists and the engineering experts who are criminalised in the process.
"The Copyright Directive was transposed into Finnish law in 2006"
Yes, the infamous "Lex Karpela", named after the minister (former Miss Finland!) pushing it. That is when I stopped almost entirely buying new records or videos in protest. I hope everyone living in a country where similar vile laws have been lobbied throught by the entertainment industry does likewise.
... how can effective DRM ever exist?
Engineer1: This new scheme should work!
Engineer2: No, because if this bit check is bypassed...
[Enter police force]
Police Officer: Sorry, you just discussed circumventing DRM, you'll have to accompany me to the local torture cells.
Engineer1: We can ship it - no one found a flaw!
On second thoughts, maybe this is a good thing! ;-)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
