Coder's Rights Project – Reverse Engineering FAQ
eff.org
eff.org
They are described in Åndsverkloven §§ 39h and 39i.
Roughly translated excerpts:
§ 39h Whoever has the right to use a computer program, can copy, change and work on the program to the extent necessary in order to utilize the program in accordance with its purpose, including in order to correct errors in the program.
Whoever has the right to use a copy of a computer program can, during such reading, screen display, running, transfer or storage of the program that the user has the right to do, monitor, examine or probe the working of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles on which the individual parts of the program is based. [This right is un-waverable]
§ 39i You are allowed to produce a copy of a computer program's code and translate the form of the code, when this is a prerequisite in order to produce the information necessary to achieve functional interaction between a self-developed program and other programs, if
a) the actions are performed by a person who has the right to use a copy of a computer program, or acting on behalf of someone who do,
b) the information is not already easily accessible, and
c) the actions are limited to the parts of the original program necessary to achieve functional interaction.
[A few limitations on utilization of the information]
These rights are un-waverable.
The only problem I can see with this (I'm not a lawyer) is that I hope 39i.c is interpreted broadly - e.g., some tools disassemble an entire executable when you only need to look at a part.
> A few limitations on utilization of the information
I don't know how it is in Norway, but I see those clauses as problematic.
There is not much point in reverse engineering a piece of software if you can't use the results freely, including implementation of directly "competing" software.
That is, most of RE is just figuring out the data formats and protocols. And I fear that in too many jurisdictions one who had analyzed those can't also be the person who can legally write an alternate implementation, and a "clean-room engineering" is required.
There is the DeCSS-case, which led to acquittal in Norwegian courts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS
See here:
* https://www.gog.com/forum/general/please_fix_your_user_agree...
* https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/to_retain_your_drm_free_st...
* https://www.gog.com/forum/general/on_gnulinux_has_anyone_be_...
* https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/dont_slip_into_drm_swamp_s...
Just the other day I was pondering who to contact to determine whether my current method of figuring out how the undocumented API works (typing command guesses over the CDC-ACM serial interface in gtkterm) puts me at risk, but it doesn't look like it. I'm not dumping the firmware and don't have a copy of it, not decompiling the original software, there is no access control on the interface, no encryption, no handshake, no EULA on the hardware itself.
Seems that I'm in the clear from what I can tell.
I've gotten enough of the commands documented that I've been able to write a library based on what I've learned, and I'm hoping to publish my documentation and the code soon. It's been quite fun to figure out how it works so I and others can actually use these things in other software :)
For example, most wifi (802.11-) chipsets have "modes" for various countries due to the fact that the "freely available" RF spectrum varies from country to country. Though illegal (according to the FCC/CE/etc), it is often possible to make wifi chipsets use chunks of frequency that are not legally accessible (within some jurisdiction). This can be done via software (drivers) or firmware (blobs), as well as through the use of additional or modified hardware (amps, antennas, ...).
When you get into "licensed spectrum" that is supposedly "owned" by a company like a mobile carrier, things get even more "legally risky" since messing around in those bands can wreak a lot of havoc. I don't know if the operation of the (mobile) baseband processors qualify as "classified" but such info is definitely protected from disclosure by both technical (hardware/software protections) and legal (contracts, NDA, etc.) means. Of course, using a self-modified baseband processor is definitely illegal since the device has not been tested and approved by the required regulatory body (FCC or CE), but the laws do have some limited exclusions/registrations for test/development purposes.
If you cause problems for a carrier that spent many billions to own/license a chunk of spectrum, then you also open yourself up to civil liability for damages, in addition to the legal problems you'll have with the Fed Gov regulatory body. Needless to say, if you go mucking around in the frequency bands dedicated by law for use by the military or law enforcement, then you are going to have a whole lot of legal problems.
Linux includes an open source regulatory information database that several open source wifi drivers use, so FCC licensing is not an issue for open source software either. It is not a form of DRM and does not require any "black boxing". Obviously you might be able to modify the software so you violate FCC rules, but you can also build your own radio transmitter and violate the FCC rules just as well. There's no special case for it being software.
If you want to experiment on the radio bands, you can trivially get a ham radio license and modify the radio as you see fit, as long as you stay within the ham radio limits.
Also, how exactly does it work when contractual prohibitions try to take away fair use rights? What wins? In this FAQ it's only mentioned that it's risky.
Because smartphones are getting more and more locked down, they have reached the point in late 2014 where many models simply cannot be rooted by 3rd parties.
Note I am not talking about carrier unlocking, I mean root.
I want full control over any device I use.
It is like buying a car but not being allowed into the trunk.
If it's DRM, to address that you'll need to fix DMCA-1201. Or more precisely, allow breaking DRM for any non infringing purpose. Right now it forbids it, and instead provides idiotic method of Librarian of Congress deciding what exceptions to grant.
This corrupted law was passed undemocratically using backdoor method of WTO trade agreements.
No, while the anticircumvention prevention is in a Title of the DMCA named for WIPO treaties that (among other treaties) were implemented in US law in other provisions of the title, the anticircumvention provision was not part of those treaties and, in any case, neither it nor any part of the DMCA was "passed" through trade agreements, the DMCA was passed through the normal legislative process.
Wrong. First of all those treaties took place before DMCA (including 1201) was passed. And there was nothing normal about it. Normal process actually rejected such idiotic restriction outright (since DRM proponents first attempted to pass it normally).
When they were kicked by normal democratic process, they turned to WIPO treaties which have no democratic oversight. Corruption there is much easier, so they squeezed anticircumvention provisions into such treaties affecting US. Then they turned back to the Congress and said: "you can't ignore your international obligations! Pass this law". And Congress passed it without much of opposition. That's not called a normal democratic process, it's called corruption and backdoor dealing.
But they aren't self-executing, and, in any case, DMCA 1201 isn't -- despite being in part of the DMCA titled for various treaties that were implemented in that Title -- part of them in any case. DMCA (the whole thing, including 1201) was passed as normal legislation by the House and Senate and with the signature of the President. You can argue that that is undemocratic.
> When they were kicked by normal democratic process, they turned to WIPO treaties which have no democratic oversight.
Since any treaty, to be law in the US, requires ratification by the Senate, it is simply false to state that they have "no democratic oversight". But its irrelevant in this case, since DMCA 1201 is a provision of statute law adopted through the regular legislative process, not something that is binding law as a result of at treaty without implementing legislation adopted through the regular legislative process.
> Then they turned back to the Congress and said: "you can't ignore your international obligations! Pass this law".
A tactic which is not actually effective when Congress wants to ignore the "international obligation" at issue. At most, one could argue -- if the anticircumvention provisions were actually contained in any of the treaties that were being implemented in the DMCA, which they weren't -- that the treaties provided political cover for something Congress wanted to do.
> That's not called a normal democratic process, it's called corruption and backdoor dealing.
To the extent there was corruption or backdoor dealing involved, it wasn't WTO or WIPO treaties "passing" the provision. You can argue that the regular legislative process was subject to corruption or backdoor dealing -- such is not at all unheard of in US legislative processes -- but any treaty process is a sideshow to that in this case, since the provision didn't become US law by being included in a treaty, it became US law by being included in a regular bill passed through Congress and signed by the President.
It also highlights how broken the current system is, when corrupted international treaties are used to shape the law bypassing normal democratic ways.
> A tactic which is not actually effective when Congress wants to ignore the "international obligation" at issue.
It should ignore it in theory, but in practice it doesn't have the guts and gives the power away to USTR and the like. That's what all this fast track idiocy is exactly about.
How he describes his intent is irrelevant. The fact is that the law was passed through the House, Senate, and Presidents signature in exactly the manner laid out in the Constitution, not "by WTO treaty". And, while some of the law implemented things previously agreed to in WIPO and other treaties, the particular provision at issue -- Section 1201 -- did not.
It might be undemocratic and/or corrupt, but if so the undemocratic/corrupt mechanism by which Section 1201 was passed is the normal US legislative process.
> It should ignore it in theory
It does in practice, when it is something that Congress doesn't want to do anyway -- this happens quite a lot on non-trade issues.
> but in practice it doesn't have the guts and gives the power away to USTR and the like.
More likely, on trade issues Congress takes advantage of treaties to provide for political cover for things Congress would like to do but where there might be greater political costs without that cover.
Using corrupt manipulation scheme and pressure by international trade agreements like described above. When democracy doesn't work, the fact that it's called democracy on paper is pretty meaningless.
> It might be undemocratic and/or corrupt, but if so the undemocratic/corrupt mechanism by which Section 1201 was passed is the normal US legislative process.
Yes, it is undemocratic and corrupt and it was passed through the legislative process, but as I said there was nothing normal about it. That process is not supposed to be manipulated by such treaties in such corrupt fashion, yet it is.
Unless you simply mean that such level of corruption is generally a norm and this participial incident should be a default expectation of how Congress would function. It doesn't fit with what Lehman said that initially his attempts to pass these laws were rejected. I.e. he didn't manage to manipulate the Congress directly, and had to pull the weight of international agreement to change that.
> It does in practice
No it doesn't. Otherwise such stuff as fast track proposals to relinquish Congress oversight won't be even considered.
> At the conference, Lehman [known as the architect of DMCA] admitted the law was the product of a deliberate end-run around the democratic process. Lehman was an advocate for several hardline proposals to criminalize digitial rights management (DRM) circumvention. Unable to sell the proposals domestically, Lehman pressed the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to propose them at the UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) instead. Many have accused Lehman of using the treaty process to avoid Congress. What was Lehman’s response to those accusations at the event? “I would say that they're right.”
Nothing more to add there, it's straight from the creator of DMCA. Corrupted law in practice.
Why not just make building DRM into a consumer product illegal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._ElcomSoft_and_...