Censorship on the Cryptography List

[Note - this is an archived version of the original posting from 04:40 AM EDT, Apr 24 2003]

The moderator of the cryptography@metzdowd.com mailing list engages in censorship of views that he doesn't like. He passes on posts which are nothing but empty philosophical ramblings as long as he agrees with them, but refuses to publish messages which challenge the conventional wisdom.

Take a look at the posting below as an example. It's a response to another message, published April 21 on the list, message ID 3EA4435D.10908@monmouth.com. It should be visible in the mailing list archive but that hasn't been updated in a week at this writing.

In my message, I respond to what I consider some rather facile criticisms of the music industry, and then offer several very good and pertinent links with tremendous information about Digital Rights Management (DRM) and the many issues associated with it. These links would be helpful and informative to the ongoing DRM discussion on that mailing list, a discussion which has largely consisted of uninformed generalities and personal prejudice.

These links alone would justify the value of my message to list readers, but the moderator chooses to hide this information from them. He is apparently so distressed by the thought of someone actually daring to defend the music industry that he chooses to censor my posting rather than allow people to read it.

I hope that subscribers to the cryptography mailing list will let the moderator know what they think of this policy. If they agree that messages like mine should be suppressed while content-free messages with a more politically acceptable view are published, then fine, say so. But if they want to hear both sides of a controversial issue, and to receive information which will shed informative light on the complex questions involved, they should ask him to let my postings through. Henceforth I will try to copy my messages here so that readers can check periodically to see what else they are being deprived of seeing.

My posting follows....

J.S. Denker criticizes the content industry:

> -- The industry abuses authors and performers.

Only with their express, written consent!

> -- The industry is inefficient.

So is every industry.

> -- Legislation to extend the term of copyright for > works already published is bad policy.

There are many valid reasons for this policy, among them: not doing so imposes a double standard; authors created their works with the expectation that they would benefit from future increases in terms; and considerable damage would be done to valuable corporate brands if copyrighted works like Mickey Mouse movies went into the public domain.

> And unconstitutional.

Now you're claiming to know more constitutional law than the United States Supreme Court, which just decided that such legislation is constitutional!

> -- Privacy, fair use, and other basic rights are under > attack and need vigorous protection.

Fair use at least is not a basic right, and it is questionable whether privacy ought to be thought of in that way. People should be allowed the freedom to make such agreements as they see fit to protect information. If that involves someone voluntarily giving up their privacy, or agreeing not to make even limited and "fair" copies of some digital content, that should be their right.

Back when copyright was enforced by the government, fair use was an appropriate tradeoff for what would otherwise be a very questionable imposition on the public's First Amendment rights. But if publishers' rights can be enforced technologically, there is no longer any need for copyright legislation and no need for a fair use exemption. Rather, the market can identify usage policies which are mutually acceptable to content sellers and buyers.

> -- The DMCA is an abomination. It protects the wrong > things and outlaws the wrong things.

The DMCA has major flaws. At the same time, much of the criticism of the DMCA has been mistaken or exaggerated. I can't count how many times I've seen claims recently that the DMCA prevents reverse engineering for compatibility when it actually has an explicit exemption for this activity. And recent analyses [1] have shown that cryptography research can still be conducted under the DMCA, albeit with some restrictions. The new Super-DMCA laws being passed in some states are much worse and lack the exemptions of the DMCA. However these policy matters will probably be cleared up in time.

> We need a system whereby inventors, authors, performers, > and even publishers get paid for their work. SOMEBODY > needs to bear the cost of this. We need a system > whereby the costs are distributed reasonably. > > We need a system for assigning valuation, distributing > the goods, collecting and distributing the fees, and > penalizing thieves. >> There's work to be done. Let's stop fooling around.

There has been a huge amount of work and discussion on these questions in the past couple of years. A good resource to get started is http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/drm/resources.html, especially the part on Impacts of DRM. There you will also find links such as http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/, an ACM workshop held last fall, and http://www.cfp2002.org/program/fairuse.shtml, a discussion of DRM and fair use at last year's CFP.

[1] https://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/drm/papers/liu-encryption-btlj2003.html